Study into near-death experiences

[YankeyMCC]

(snip)
A large study is to examine near-death experiences in heart attack patients.

Doctors at 25 UK and US hospitals will study 1,500 survivors to see if people with no heartbeat or brain activity can have "out of body" experiences.

Some people report seeing a tunnel or bright light, others recall looking down from the ceiling at medical staff.
(snip)

(snip)
To test this, the researchers have set up special shelving in resuscitation areas. The shelves hold pictures - but they're visible only from the ceiling.

Dr Sam Parnia, who is heading the study, said: "If you can demonstrate that consciousness continues after the brain switches off, it allows for the possibility that the consciousness is a separate entity.

"It is unlikely that we will find many cases where this happens, but we have to be open-minded.
(snip)

(snip)
Dr Parnia works as an intensive care doctor, and felt from his daily duties that science had not properly explored the issue of near-death experiences.
(snip)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7621608.stm

I'm so glad Dr Parnia and the hospitals involved will be spending time and money on this :eyes:

And I'm sure when no-one sees the paintings from the ceiling (or will they find some vague language in one or two people's description that will be used to say they may have seen the picture? ) it'll put the question to rest for everyone. :sarcasm:

[LeftishBrit]

1. Actually this COULD be an interesting study, if carried out from the point of view...

of looking at how extreme physical stress can affect our brain function.

There is a lot of research already that shows that many people with no psychiatric illness have experienced some form of 'psychotic' symptom such as hallucinations or out-of-the-body experiences. Some people are more susceptible to such abnormal experiences than others; but they are also strongly linked to abnormal physical conditions: high fever (a blind friend of mine experienced *visual* hallucinations when ill with a high fever); sensory deprivation; sudden severe injury.

Here's a link to a paper by my colleague Gordon Claridge and a collaborator:

www.linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0191886904002302

It's not at all unlikely that the sort of physical stress that nearly kills you would lead to a greatly increased chance of abnormal perceptual experiences; hence 'near-death experiences'. Certainly a very interesting topic for research.

However, if the researchers think that such studies can prove (or disprove) the existence of an afterlife, then they are wasting their time and the taxpayers' money.

[YankeyMCC]

2. I agree that studying what happens to the brain

and to the extent possible the limits and nature of consciousness is interesting and often valuable but this does not sound like a valuable study to me if they are putting pictures on shelves to see if people near death can look down from the ceiling.

[trotsky]

3. You are right, this is not a valuable study.

No possible result from it - even a total failure of ANY patient identifying ANY of the images - will dissuade the twue believers. But if just one person should be close enough on a guess, well, you've just fed the woo.

The proper stance should be that OOBE-believers must demonstrate the phenomenon - the burden of proof lies with them.

[varkam]

5. Well, to be fair...

no study, no matter how valuable or rigorous, would dissuade the "twue believers."

[LeftishBrit]

4. True- this sounds like a bizarre thing to study

Taking brain recordings could be interesting; but the 'pictures' idea is just weird.

[moggie]

6. That's a maddeningly incomplete report

As always in the mass media, they have nothing to say about the methodology which will be used. So, researchers will question the subjects about whether they recall the images. But will those asking the questions know what the images were? Will the wording of the questions be standardised? How will hits be decided: if one picture is a bird, would "an animal" be a hit or a miss? Will the images remain unchanged for three years, or be switched around? An article like this is an opportunity to educate readers about things like blinding and experimenter's bias.

[onager]

7. Now HERE is a good NDE study!

Despite her reputation as a scientist and a medical doctor, bringing in a guy to have sex with your clients is considered unprofessional in some circles, even if the guy wears a turban.

When some of the widows developed vaginal infections after these sessions, it looked as if Kübler-Ross's reputation as an expert on scientific evidence for the afterlife was damaged for good...

http://skepdic.com/nde.html

In scanning the links, I didn't see any mention of the USAF studies by Dr. James Winnery. Most of you Fundamentalist Skeptics probably know about them. He duplicated NDE's with Air Force fighter pilots in a centrifuge, as the blood choogled around in their brains and bodies (excuse the technical scientific jargon, there.) Winnery himself said he had about 30 NDE-type experiences during routine Air Force tests.

The NDE woos immediately latched onto Winnery's research as "pwoof" that NDE's existed. But to my admittedly low-power brain, it implies just the opposite. Fighter-pilot candidates are far from death--they're some of the healthiest people on earth. So what Winnery demonstrated was that NDE's are probably caused by physical processes, not metaphysical.

Penn & Teller's Bullshit! did an episode on Winnery, and you can probably find it lying around the Internets.

http://badpsychics.com/thefraudfiles/modules/news/print.php?storyid=645

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cosmik debris]

9. You flatter yourself

When you accuse others of fear.

[salvorhardin]

10. Nobody is afraid of "...the possibility that the consciousness is a separate entity."

Neither are we afraid to read your posts. You're just erecting a giant straw man and then beating it down. I can guarantee that if this study is well designed, shows non-trivial results and passes rigorous peer review that what you will find is any scientist or self-respecting skeptic will simply say, "Hmm. That's interesting. I wouldn't have predicted that. Let's see if we can replicate the results." Definitely showing the existence of a phenomena is the first step along the way toward it becoming science. So far, no one has shown that consciousness exists independently of the meat in our noggins.

From that, a logical person would have to conclude that life is a kind of 'experiment' that might offer a moment of reflection, rather than a pass/fail....

Nope. A logical person would not conclude that. If the phenomena is demonstrated, if consciousness is shown to exist independently of the brain and body, it still says nothing about the purpose of life. Science addresses "how", not "why".

Furthermore, once again you're just erecting straw men. Who here has said anything about life being a "pass/fail" proposition? That's something you'd hear from a social darwinist, not a bunch of pro-science, liberal democrats. Rather, it's your philosophy that we choose to be sick or poor that comes closest to that kind of Calvinist claptrap.

[varkam]

11. You seem to think "afraid" means "think it is a stupid idea"

I'll tell you that afraid means something completely different.

[dropkickpa]

12. *snort*

See, big daddy sky fairy and all of the associated trapping don't exist, so I have the same fear of them as I do of tribbles. I just think the spending on this research is a huge waste of valuable money that could go towards something that is actually beneficial.

[YankeyMCC]

13. Hey now

Tribbles are a little spooky..at least to us Klingons ;)

[TZ]

14. afraid? SUUUURE...

I see "you create your own reality" has turned into "I live in my own little universe and believe what I want to believe, screw the facts!"....:rofl: :popcorn:

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cosmik debris]

16. Again you flatter yourself

by accusing others of being afraid.

Your ideas are not feared, and only you believe that they are.

[salvorhardin]

17. Really?

And the 'why's' are more numerous and more important than the 'how's' in terms of serving the public interest.

Gee. I thought the public interest was pretty well served by science explaining the "hows" of germs and their causation of disease. I also thought the understanding of the "hows" of elctromagnetism served by the public interest pretty well by allowing the delivery of electricity to almost every home providing things like safe electrical lighting, refrigeration and numerous other devices. And speaking of refrigeration, I thought the "hows" of pressure and gasses served the public interest too by making it so we could manufacture devices to store meats and dairy safely and over a long term. I could go on, but it's sort of pointless in your case.

[CanSocDem]

19. Yes.

Please explain how the public who cannot afford the 'science' are served.

Please explain why the production of electricity/energy cannot be performed by each individual.

Please explain why public health is so expensive.

And while you're at it, explain to me why taking personal responsibility for your own life is such a difficult concept for 'pro-science liberal democrats'....

[salvorhardin]

20. Like I said.

Pointless.

Have a fun day battling those straw men. They're pretty fierce I hear.

[realisticphish]

22. ever had a straw cut?

deadly.

[JitterbugPerfume]

21. You are what you think--

Jeez , that's frightening

Lily Tomlin


by the way , a true skeptic is not afraid of ANY provable knowledge

[TZ]

18. So WHY haven't you cured cancer yet then?

Oh wait I forgot..People only get horrible, painful diseases because they WANT to right?
I'm sure all the Africans who die of Malaria, TB, and AIDS really WANTED to die right?
All those people who died of Small Pox wanted to be out of our way...The native americans who died must have REALLY believed that the white man was entitled to their land, right?
You are a fool who doesn't understand what the scientific methodology is, objectivity vs subjectivity or how the universe works..What happens to ones conciousness after death doesn't really matter..as long as ones alive..but hey, if one wants to waste ones life living in LA-LA land..Others of us enjoy actually learning about the world around us, and believe it or not, living without the blinders of extreme subjectivity (I want to make the world to be the way I want it, fuck reality!--your philosophy to the core) is actually healthy and makes one happier.

[Random_Australian]

23. Spare me the speech on pride for as least as long as you claim superior understanding

to everyone, via your own introspection.

Validating and appreciating knowledge gained from the unconscious? Sure. We do that all the time. The bits of psychology we'd call scientific made it that far a long time ago.

But really, here are a few things you might want to consider.

A) "demanding that we show 'proof' that there is conscious life after death, when you haven't even understood life after birth."

I also don't understand lots of other stuff. Like economics. However, for some odd reason I still ask for proof of life after death if you want me to believe in life after death. Maybe I'm just strange, or maybe you were trying to dodge the topic.

B) "It won't happen because you are afraid to attempt living without your science"

Afraid? Really? You sure? You really sure about that? That we are motivated by fear, not reason? Now that is odd. Very odd indeed. Of course, what it isn't is an argument that we should believe anything you say. What it is is yet another unfounded assertion that will only ever be backed up by more assertions, should your previous postings give any indication as to how you think.

C) "or as another poster put it, (in my words) being satisfied with the explanations of "how" things work, rather than asking "why""

Well, except that a complete description (Y'know the thing science is trying to make and going rather well at thus far) contains the why and the how. Whoopsadasie!

D) "Really.....your limited, materialistic view of the world is the new Flat Earth Society."

I'm noticing a little trend here. Every time before, you've only sat there making assertions and never bothering to show us peons your reasoning, then claiming we are arrogant for not concluding that your reasoning is correct. ("with your 'superior' intellect, you haul your sorry asses").

And you still do. You are, in the very least, consistent. Now, respond to this post by making more random assertions about how the universe works. But be careful, don't show any reasoning or give any argument to back up what you say, or you'll be completely out of whack with all your previous posts.

[Random_Australian]

24. The grammar! It burns! The stupid! It pours petrol on the flames!

"That would be scary wouldn't it???"

A) You only need one question mark.
B) No.
C) Some people think that you should ask people what they believe. However, you appear to be more from the school of "tell people what they believe. Why should they have any say? You're completely wonderful and know everything already"

"From that, a logical person would have to conclude that life is a kind of 'experiment' that might offer a moment of reflection, rather than a pass/fail"

Um, no.

From that, a logical person would have to conclude that there is consciousness outside the body. You don't get to apply whatever whack mumbojumbofrootloops idea that you like and say "this must be the only explanation".

Hint: You want to be convincing? Then why not try backing up your assertions with some kind of argument about why they are right.

To whit:
Good:
"You would have to conclude that life is a learning experience for something longer-lived, because the damn conscious thing may exist for far longer. With no reason to conclude that it decays or ceases to exist, living could be only a relatively short period in the overall 'lifetime' of this consciousness"

Bad:
"You must conclude that life is an experiment. If you don't, it is because you are making an irrational emotional decision"

Let's compare the two to your post:

"This is what...........................................
..............................................................
..............................................................
.................you all seem to be afraid of."

(Extra ellipsis added so you can see how annoying it is)

"That would be scary wouldn't it?"

"a logical person would have to conclude that life is a kind of 'experiment'"

"It goes on, but with so many on this forum afraid to read my posts"


Note: My delicate pattern matching apparatus detects a certain similarity between your post and one of "good" or "bad". Guess which one! :)

[realisticphish]

25. .

Note: My delicate pattern matching apparatus detects a certain similarity between your post and one of "good" or "bad". Guess which one! :)


:rofl: