The dead contacting the living

Great Debates
181

Originally Posted by Gyrate
There was an interesting segment in an episode of Radio Lab (last segment) in which pilots experiencing high g-forces repeatedly report out-of-body experiences and hallucinations. The suggestion is that the mind, starved of sensory input from the rest of the body for whatever reason, attempts to “create” a version of reality to explain what is going on. In extreme cases the test subjects reported seeing the much-vaunted “tunnel of light” - the mind is shutting down and fighting against it.

Our consciousness is an artifact of the way the brain interprets sensory input. When the brain is gone, “we” are no more.

The research you speak of is thirty years out of date. Modern research show a distinct separation of brain and body as in the Pam Reynolds video.

There are hundreds of accounts like this one, but with not as good documentation. Pam’s surgery is throughly documented. Even with the observations of the surgeon included.
I still haven’t figured out why I can’t quote both posts, but let’s pretend that feature worked…

Honestly, I think that the entire problem is pretty much summed up here. An episode of “Radio Lab” is not a study. The fact that people under these particular conditions reported consistent experiences which are similar to isolated, individual aspects of reported NDE’s makes for an interesting anecdote, but it’s not really research. Too many factors are uncontrolled and conflated with each other; too many facts not in evidence are assumed. And the “tunnel” experience-- sorry, but I do have to point this out-- is not a central feature of reported NDE’s at all (Athappilly, Greyson, & Stevenson, 2006). Based on this, I don’t believe it to be significant one way or the other that pilots experiencing high g-forces reported it.

The Pam Reynolds story, however, is not a controlled study either. I’ve tried to analyze it, and I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s really kind of a mess. Maybe she reported detailed information which she only could have heard when she was under anesthesia and chilled down to 60 degrees, but I have to say that I think it’s just as likely that she pieced it together based on information she learned at other times. Maybe the observations of the neurosurgeon involved are meaningful, and maybe they’re not (there’s no proof that he had information that derived from access to controlled conditions either). Maybe the fact that she was involved in an NDE study before the operation happened taints the results. And maybe it doesn’t, because it’s a fact that simply doesn’t sound good but really has no effect on anything that happened. I can’t say that I’m completely sure that Pam Reynolds’ story should be dismissed out of hand, but it’s not good research,and neither are episodes of “Radio Lab.” Logical conclusions just can’t be drawn from either one.
Athappilly GK, Greyson B, Stevenson I. (2006) Do prevailing societal models influence reports of near-death experiences?: a comparison of accounts reported before and after 1975.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders. 194(3):218-22.

182

If you click on the Dr. James Whinnery link on the Radio Lab page, you get a slightly more relevant discussion of the NDE research (yes, actual research) relating to gravitationally-induced loss of consciousness. [Caveat: it’s not Whinnery’s website, it’s one devoted to NDE stuff. Apply an appropriate number of grains of salt when reading.]

183

People see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. There is no such thing as an objective approach. QM tells us that. Having had the experience, there is no problem understanding it. The main thing about it is the changed lives for the better. How it can help others to improve and gain control of their lives for the better. Science teaches that the brain is the creator and the controler which is false. Each person is in control of their own destiny. If you are experiencing mental and emotional problems they can be cured by understanding you have the power to do so. You are the boss of your life, you say what it will be.

184

Nice abuse of words what individually have a clear meaning in biochemistry (microtubules proteins) or physics (quantum superposition), but that in this particular combination make absolutely no sense!!!

185

Now that’s cool. Everyone should definitely check it out! :slight_smile: I do wish they had a link to Whinnery’s original research on that page. Intrepid researcher to the rescue! :wink:

Recurrent+G{z}-induced loss of consciousness.
Whinnery, James E; Jones, David R.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. Vol 58(10) Oct 1987, 943-947.
[Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal]
Year of Publication
1987

AB During routine experimentation, 4 29-39 yr old individuals experienced recurrent (3-5) episodes of G-LOC (+G{z}-induced loss of consciousness) over 6-25 min. The recurrent G-LOC episodes accentuated the psychologic reactions (PRs) experienced by Ss and allowed detailed analysis. 3 Ss underwent detailed psychiatric interrogation. In addition to the post-G-LOC difficulty in recognizing the uncounsciousness episode due to amnesia, specific PRs such as suppression (denial) further complicate one’s ability to recognize the episode. Recovery from G-LOC occurs in phases characterized by specific psychologic factors. The major PRs following G-LOC included confusion, disorientation, altered judgment, embarrassment, dissociation, euphoria, anxiety, fear, and antagonism. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved)
Recovery from G{z}-induced loss of consciousness: Psychophysiologic considerations.
Forster, Estrella M; Whinnery, James E.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. Vol 59(6) Jun 1988, 517-522.
[Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal]
Year of Publication
1988 AB Eight healthy male volunteer members of the US Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine were exposed to 2 consecutive acceleration runs of varying onset rate. Ss were instructed to relax during the acceleration exposure to induce loss of consciousness (G-LOC). Ss were asked to relate dreams, thoughts, or other mental illusions experienced during G-LOC episodes. Early post-G-LOC transient paralysis, as well as late LOC myoclonic (flailing) movements, were evident. In the dreams reported, Ss experienced (1) confusion/anxiety, frustration, and “paralysis” or (2) happiness and relaxation. Results suggest that G-LOC dream-state analysis, post-G-LOC paralysis, and their possible effect on performance and incapacitation periods should be investigated as operationally important and psychophysiologically significant phenomena. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved)
These were the only two articles (out of 19) that seemed to have any bearing on G-LOC experiences and NDE’s; the rest concentrated on various techniques to make the experience safer for pilots. I wish I had full copies of the two articles instead of only abstracts; I think I"ll try to get them through interlibrary loan. I just don’t know how much similarity I see to NDE’s from what’s in the abstracts, though; I think more was read into them than what’s there, because Whinnery’s actual research never had anything to do with NDE’s to begin with. Actually, I think it might have begun with pro-NDE’ers, because the G-LOC experience really does have quite a bit in common with an NDE. So if there really were much of anything to the “G-LOC similarities” argument, it’s impossible to say which position it would support.

But this is why I don’t like proof-text arguments. Good NDE research, like any other type of research, isn’t about serving as a proof-text for a “side”. I don’t think the Pam Reynolds story is all that interesting either way, for example, because I doubt there’s anything quantifiable about it. The G-LOC studies are interesting because something fascinating and mysterious is going on in the brains of the people who experience this phenomenon, and it can be reproduced and studied. But I don’t know what relation it has to NDE’s or what meaning any of it has, and I certainly don’t know if any of it is proof “of” anything.

186

Okay, I’m starting to get pissed off. I’ve been called a liar, a New Age phony, and an idiot for explaining a model devised by one of the most celebrated scientists of our age.

What specifically is unclear here? The neurons in the brain have microtubules which are lined with proteins. The proteins are small enough to be affected by quantum mechanics. Originally, the model of the quantum brain was attacked because physicists felt proteins were several orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be significant. Later developments, however, showed that quantum rules could be used to successfully predict protein folding. The proteins in these microtubules, then, according to Penrose’s model, exist for one to two seconds at a time in a state of quantum superposition; they are essentially qubits. The probability wave created through the combined complexity of quadrillions of these proteins are what Penrose believes is consciousness.

Christ, if you don’t believe me, RTFM. I gave you the names of the books. If you can’t be bothered to read them, then kindly refrain from telling me I’m stupid, lying, or babbling nonsense.

187

It’s one thing to say that quantum interactions are a part of consciousness. It’s another thing to randomly extrapolate that to the existence of a soul. Consciousness, if created at a quantum level, is still created by the brain. Remove the brain and there is precisely zero reason to think that consciousness would remain. Like smashing a lightbulb and expecting the light to keep shining.

It’s just stupid. Sorry if the assessment upsets you.

188

Whenever you want to talk about something you agree with it’s all fact, but when someone mentions a dissenting opinion you can’t immediately dismiss with more handwaving or outright babble suddenly people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. Why doesn’t this ever apply to you?

Sigh. We’ve already been over this, quite recently. Quantum mechanics tells us no such thing. You’re misinterpreting something you don’t understand and using it to you support your otherwise unsupportable assertions.

So a NDE changes a person for the better every time? You wanna back that rather large claim up with some evidence?

Until you can come up with one solid bit of evidence, and you haven’t yet, what science teaches will always have way more credibility than you.

Unless there is something actually wrong with your brain, in which case imagining it won’t help at all.

189

No, you didn’t have an NDE-you had a bad dream.

190

For those of you new to Lekatt, he claims his near death experience occurred during a heart attack he had one night in bed, at home. His word is the only evidence that the heart attack happened. There is no other evidence he was ever near death. If I recall correctly, a months later check up showed no signs of a heart attack. Lekatt admits this but claims that his heart was healed by ‘light beings’.

IMO The man never had a heart attack. He just had a series of dreams, starting on the night he claims to have had a heart attack. My father, on the other hand, did have a few heart attacks before finally dying for good (I still miss the man). Each heart attack left him extremely weak and in intensive care. You do NOT have a heart attack and then wake up just fine the next morning.

191

I have posted evidence showing you are wrong.

192

Czarcasm and Doc

Posting false witness about me will gain you nothing.

I believe in the goodness of people, a willingness to want to know the truth. These will seek it out and come to their own decisions on what is real and what is not. Those that would believe you outright, would believe anything. Unfortunately most skeptics will believe anything told them by another skeptic without checking it out, these are not really skeptics, but believers. Real skeptics are more careful as to what they are willing to believe from others with an obvious agenda.

193

Isn’t your main citation from a blog of a person who is essentially trading on her NDE?

194

Your site is my cite.
'Nuff said.

195

Go on then, point out where thoughts occur on the macro level.

196

No you haven’t. Ever. Everything you have posted as evidence has either been hand written accounts containing huge amount of guessing and interpretation and no objective evidence whatsoever or complete and utter bullplop like Dr. Quantum. The closest you’ve come to posting anything like scientific evidence was an article on a study that they were thinking about doing. Dr. Quantum isn’t evidence of anything having to do with quantum mechanics. Blogs are not evidence of the spiritual world and the afterlife. And neither are bad dreams.

197

You mean like in the brain? By proteins? As in, not by quantum particles but by molecules? Does this really need explanation?

198

No.

199

Really, guess you haven’t been reading my posts or blog. Nor the links I provide, it is ok. No harm done. No truth changed.

200

Great, that will prove you wrong in a nanosecond.