AwareofAware

Evolving news on the science, writing and thinking about Near Death Experiences (NDEs)

Brand New Findings Revealed?

Thanks to Eduardo for picking this one up. I am extremely busy at the moment so don’t always have the time to trawl the networks for anything Parnia or NDE related, so appreciate when others email me links or post them in discussions. I felt this was worth pulling out. It was aired earlier this week on Dr Oz on January 22nd 2018. Dr Oz opens the segment with the announcement that brand new findings are going to be revealed (in the show). He then introduces Dr Parnia…well have a look yourself, click on the picture of our favorite intensive care doctor to access the video:

Parnia

Is this a sleight of hand or is there actually new data, or “brand new findings”?

Dr Parnia on one hand seems to describe the design of the most recent iteration of AWARE, AWARE II, then slips in “we did a study…” talking about the results from AWARE I. Given that he categorically stated in emails and on his Twitter feed that the results from AWARE II won’t be made public until after the study is finished in 2020, and that at this stage they have only recruited 350 or so, one can only assume that he is referring to AWARE I. However, the confidence he has in the assertions he makes seem to be growing stronger, which makes me believe that AWARE II has got some verified hits. AWARE I did not have any properly confirmed OBEs (i.e. validated sightings of pictures). There were some interesting accounts, and without doubt some real NDEs, and OBEs, but without the visual confirmation, they are nothing more than has been reported from countless other studies or independent accounts.

I do wonder why he is doing this. Is it to plug his book (Dr Oz does that at the end of the segment)? On some days he seems keen to protect the integrity of the study by not disclosing any preliminary results, but on others he does this kind of stuff. I guess there’s nothing specifically wrong with it, but from my perspective as a scientist, I do find the hyperbole attached to this format of show to be distracting and potentially tainting the credibility of the research, especially when the headlines do not match the reality. From what I can see there are no new major findings presented in this show.

As I say above, I can only assume that he is so confident now in producing paradigm shifting results, that he knows that in the long term, this will not cause any damage.

Single Post Navigation

99 thoughts on “Brand New Findings Revealed?

Comment navigation

  1. I thought exactly I mean exactly what you said Ben. The case for A1 is he could have been talking about the auditory hit. I think its psychological bias because ears are open and eyes are not……so maybe he was convinced by A-1…….but then he is very confident and tosses in a reference to the the visuals.He exuded the same confidence in other recent comments…..including the consciousness field…..I lean that there have been some hits. Anyway I regulary check google scholar which is where I got tge last link. And thanks to Eduardo. Sorry I took so long before giving you a summary of the above video. All I can say is he may have book and TV but so do a lot of others and he is no ancient astronaut cable tv theorist.

    Like

  2. Dr Oz has faced criticism for his support of some alternative medicine though in contrast Parnia just stumbled into this when pushing the limits of resuscitation. I wonder if he has found the limit yet.

    Like

  3. Perhaps they are calling new findings for those that for the first time become aware of these studies or even what it is NDE.
    I would not assume that all this news are only addressed to the scientific community

    Like

  4. Hi Ben. Did you say a new book from Sam parnia?

    Like

  5. Eduardo Fulco on said:

    frankly I find it hard to believe that dr. Sam Parnia is exposed to such sensationalist media without having enough “evidence” to support his hypothesis. It would clearly put your professional prestige at risk …

    Like

  6. Sorry misread it. It the 2014 book

    Like

  7. Eduardo Fulco on said:

    He said earlier that he could put his professional prestige at risk. Do not forget that, leaving aside for a moment the issue of NDEs, the existence of the mistress etc., Parnía is considered a “great resuscitator” because with his method of hypothermia and other techniques significantly increased resuscitation rates successfully in several hospitals in the United States and Great Britain ….. Consequently exposing himself to sensationalist means would risk his professional prestige, if he does not have enough evidence to support his hypothesis.

    Like

    • Great points Eduardo. He is a highly respected researcher in the field of resuscitation medicine in his own right, the NDE aspect is a “side effect” of his work if you like, but obviously the one that receives the most attention.

      Again, to your point about confidence, there are 15 hospitals partaking in this study, all keen to preserve their credibility and integrity. I suspect that principle investigators in each of these instutions from the study, have been made aware of ongoing results in investigator meetings, and possibly share in his confidence, otherwise they might be less keen to be assocaited with him or with the study.

      I do wonder if he can keep a lid on any positive hits for another two years though. In some ways he is already out there inferring he has hits by doing what he is. This gets the sceptics asking him to show them “the money”, and hey presto, in 2020 he does. Why else would he behave in this way? Also, I am changing my position as we also every right to speculate as this can only be designed to fuel speculation.

      Like

  8. No deviation from the mind being a separate undiscovered scientific entity, which goes back over many years (inc. in Dr. Parnia’s Erasing Death book) he talks of this particular concept. Easy to find Google references over the years to this. Promising!

    Like

  9. Eduardo Fulco on said:

    According to Dr. Van Lommel, another important researcher of the NDEs there is what is called “blindness for lack of attention”. This means that only when we have the intention to decide where to place the attention will we consciously perceive the event or object on which we focus. There are studies done about this “blindness for lack of attention” and they show that people in general do not report having noticed an UNEXPECTED object. All this makes me think how difficult, although not impossible, it is to validate Parnia as out-of-body experiences, but I recognize that, using the scientific method, it is the only way that “would shape the skeptics.”
    This article is interesting to Pim Van Lommel. http://www.extremamente.it/2017/04/06/pim-van-lommella-coscienza-sopravvive-alla-morte/

    Like

  10. Its amazing that perception after death looks like well life. Parnis controls are impressive.I would add what Parnia found about post cardiac brain swelling makes this more amazing. The other take I had from Aware 1 was hit made the case for the DNR more than resusitation to me.

    Like

    • This is an interesting point. Are we interferring with “fate” or “God’s will” or “the universe’s will” by bringing people back. Obviously, given that many of these people say that they have met someone who told them it wasn’t their time, suggests otherwise, but then they would say that as presumably they know! It’ a philosophical can of worms!

      Like

  11. Oh that is an intersting point Ben but I was thinking more pragmatically that most revived people were still in pretty bad shape and most ended up dying shortly thereafter …That said if its some sort if field interacting with brains then I dont see a big philosophical problem.

    Like

  12. Samwise on said:

    Did anyone hear Dr.Parnia on this radio show?

    Like

  13. Eduardo Fulco on said:

    Thanks Samwise! how good would it be to be able to find where you can hear it!

    Like

  14. I see you posted Eduardo. This was just yesrerday. It looks like its run by NYC Langone. The facebook page says its on Sirius xm which isva US satellite subscription radi program.

    Like

  15. Eduardo Fulco on said:

    Thanks David

    Like

  16. He must have something. He sure acts like a person just dying ..pun intended….to tell something…but just cant yet….

    Like

    • Yep, my thinking exactly. If he’s sitting on multiple hits, there is no way he will be able to stay quiet about it for 2-3 years. At some point, if the weight of evidence reaches a tipping point…say 3 or more rock solid visually confirmed OBEs, with cast iron evidence, from more than one institution, then I personally believe that he has an ethical duty to present an “unplanned interim analysis” as we call it in the business.

      Like

      • If he found somethjng livesaving he sure would but this is more comforting if the end is near at least in this form so he can probably get away with tormenting us here some more.

        Like

  17. Is there a listen back option on this. Unable to find it?

    Like

  18. Pity. I asked a person on Facebook who commented if they coukd do a summary

    Like

  19. Life is 80-100 years maybe, but your soul is eternal…knowing you have one, and being concerned about insuring its survival, is infinitely more important than adding a year or so to your life.

    Like

    • I am Jewish our focus is the world we have . Yes its a long time being in Sheol but our job is to improve this world because we really have no power over the next.

      Like

      • Different religions obviously have a different take on the impact of your behaviour here on your afterlife. Most suggest consequences, which, if true, makes this research potentially much more important than regular medical research. As my prophet says, what good is it if you gain the whole world and yet forfeit your very soul. This research, if successful proves the existence of a soul, therefore looking after the health of that entity becomes the paramount goal. Having said that, prior to the modern era, most people believed in the soul and God, and yet they still behaved terribly, so maybe it won’t make that much difference!

        Like

    • Bill on said:

      I think you can just downtown a SiriusXM App in AppStore, And find Doctor Radio Channel. Go to “Everyday Health”, and find AWARE study in Jan 30th. You can listen to their talk then. Actually, I have listened to it, and he talks more more confident than in the video. I actually felt that it could possibly brought him some critiques if the talk is heard by more people. He spoke in a way like he could 100% find evidences in the research. It is not a normal tone like him.

      Like

  20. I dont think it will make any difference because humans can find infjnite ways to rationalize their creulty so they will never see themselves in trouble..

    Like

  21. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_eschatology. Wikipedia gives past and present diverse views and they are diverse from none to reincarnation you name it. But hell obsession is mostly a Christian creation .

    Like

  22. Ah yes this video. This video was the one that Eduardo showed me. The video that converted me hard towards absolute theism. As a man of science I like to stay up to date on groundbreaking scientific studies and a scientist discovered valid evidence that consciousness is not the brain. It’s a separate entity from the brain. Therefore brain creates consciousness theory gets thrown out the window and it’s now more along the lines of consciousness creates brain. I really enjoyed this video and I am excited to hear what he will announce in 2020. I think he has quite a few hits now.

    Like

  23. Yep David. The Dr. Oz video. Seems to be both. Consciousness interacts with a brain but it seems to do it’s own thing without one too so has both created the brain and is also interacting with the brain. Very cool stuff.

    Like

  24. I suspect he has more because of his comments about a consciousness field. I found those comments really interesting. Its also like he is trolling the skepic crowd.

    Like

  25. Eduardo Fulco on said:

    Specifically, something that we already knew, is that the methodology used in phase II of the Aware Study consists of the use of tablets that will be placed above the patient when resuscitation is practiced with the intention of objectively proving the separation of consciousness from the patient. body (OBE) during clinical death.https://web.archive.org/web/20160509201054/https://www.ukctg.nihr.ac.uk/trials/trial-details/trial-details?trialId=31651

    Like

  26. Samwise on said:

    It says in German that the writer attended and gave a lecture at a conference held by Sam Parnia in 2012

    Like

  27. Eduardo Fulco on said:

    David, you say that Parnia’s statements in these videos (which I can not understand because I do not understand English) is like chasing the skeptical crowd. Now I wonder if that is because several patients have seen the hidden objectives only visible from the ceiling, or if it is because it has no validated case and the same Parnia is preparing to the “attack” skeptical, because He is convinced that consciousness is a separate entity distinct from the brain. You have understood the videos, what do you think?

    Like

  28. Just my opinion……He has something because he knows the skeptic crowd would be ready to jump on him. The pentagon just did the same thing to them on ufos.

    Like

    • You mean the case of the ‘flying tic-tac’? I was under the impression that they were forced to release that, not that the DOD wanted to release it to potshot the skeptics.

      Like

  29. Eduardo Fulco on said:

    Thaks David

    Like

  30. DOD really didnt but the former head of the program was able to avoid classifcation of the two videos. The Dod did confirm their autheticity and Raytheon confirmed it was their system but they lacked or could not fully confirm because of classifcation. The skeptics claimed it was a reflection and that pilots were not trained observers. The former head noted the objects had been picked up on radar and there was more classified video. But back to Parnia I have seen no recent reaction to his latest pronouncements. I really think he has a hit or more. I think his work is much more solid than the UFo. What they have in common is the ufo head has a suspicion of what they are. So does Parnia. I must say from what I have seen of both there is no doubt from Aware 1 that something we do not jnderstand is happening with conscioussness after death BUT I can not conclude what Parnia is now talking about conclusive proof and a consciousness field can be claimed. Since I know a lot about Parnia i stongly suspect he knows more than I do. The same is claimed on the ufo but I really have not follwed that at all until the New York Times. But Harry Reid and John Podesta do vouch for him. And Reid was the first warning about Russia in fall of 2016. He said that will suprise a lot of people when it came out. Looks like there are a lot of suprises. One other note on reaction to the ufo. Some true believers dont beleve tge pentagon. I cann see that. We have had a lot of lies . Daniel Schorr covered the pentagon for years and mentioned ufos. He did not think there was anything but with a history of lying…it was understandable many people did. Now the pentagon come clean and people dont believe them. As to after death we have had psychic con artists but Parnia is not selling anything like that…..he may with his consciousness field may be saying quite the opposite.

    Like

  31. It will sure be interesting to know what this study finds. If NDE patients can really see things from above their body, if that is the case, then it would seem impossible to me that there wouldn’t be any verified hits, and that no one would be able to see what was on the computer screens. Because with most patients, the first thing they see during NDE is their own body and doctors working on this. So if this is real, it seems impossible that there would be no verified hits, regarding to what people see on the computer screens.,

    Which leads me to the conclusion that if there are no verified hits, then consciousness probably doesn’t seperate from the body during NDE.

    Of course you can never have 100% proof one way or the other.

    Like

  32. Eduardo Fulco on said:

    http://www.extremamente.it/2017/04/06/pim-van-lommella-coscienza-sopravvive-alla-morte/ There are many NDEs where the subject separated from his body saw objects that he could not see from his own body. For example the case of Maria’s running shoes, the case of dentures of dr. Van Lommel, the case of the visualization of a 25-cent dollar coin on top of a caridaco monitor located 2, 4 meters high on the ground level, etc, etc … Now the impact emotional of an NDE does, as you say, that the attention is focused primarily on the medical work on the body of the subject and pass unnoticed an object that may be irrelevant … The researcher dr. Van Lommel, like others, thinks that it may be very difficult to see the hidden objectives … and understands that there is a reason for this called “blindness for lack of attention” as stated at the end of this article whose link left

    Like

    • Eduardo Fulco on said:

      What in a few words says dr. Pim Van Lommel is that only if we have the intention to decide where to place the attention will we consciously perceive the event or object on which we focus

      Like

  33. just_man on said:

    Can’t wait 2-2,5 years to find out exactly what does it all mean?:)
    Don’t jump the gun.
    If NDEs and afterlife are real, it will be definitely declared as truth in due time.
    “Increased confidence” (is it real or you just interpret it this way?) can mean anything.

    Like

  34. Well that’s the thing. Doctors say “time of death” during cardiac arrest because the patient is for all intensive purposes dead. These patients are hooked up to machines that measure their brain and heart activity. During CA both activities flatline because there is no function in those organs. The whole dang thing shuts off. And these studies show that people are still able to perceive but not only perceive thought but perceive thought better then before. As such this alone provides valid evidence to the consciousness field theory. I bet he already has quite a few hits and there will be more as research continues and I am betting by 2020 he will have a lot of positive results to show in front of a broad audience. Let’s wait it out and see what happens. I bet lots of good will come from it. 🙂

    Like

  35. All, this looks like from a recent interview (article published 10/2/2018) with Dr. Parnia and a microbiology researcher in Newsweek, written by a journalist. Also it’s about how cells and genes keep going for a fair bit after death. http://www.newsweek.com/where-do-you-go-when-you-die-increasing-signs-human-consciousness-after-death-800443

    Like

  36. Parnia is correcting some earlier bad reporting here. Just because your brain cells are not dead has nothing to do with brain function. Some of the articles mentioned before Parnia are from open acess journals be very wary of those. Parnias papers and A1 were and are all peer reviewed.

    Like

    • Exactly. If you remove the power from a computer, it is unable to work…period, it is technically dead, but resupply the power and the computer works again. The brain, for a period is just like this. Without the supply of oxygenated blood it will stop working within seconds. It no longer processes anything. Restart the supply of blood, and provided it is not too long, or the brain has been cooled, then it will return to full function. However, if cells start dying, then full function may not be restored, this is when the process of death starts to become irreversible. Technical death, when the heart has stopped and the brain is not working, is different from celular death, but it isn’t long before the latter catches up with the former. Much of Dr Parnia’s work has focused on methods that reduce cellular death during rescusitation.

      Like

      • Exactly Ben Parnia is trying to explain this to the media…but the differnce is my tablet here is like well nothing…..its not a bat in deference to Thomas Nagle…..and it cant describe or hear anything when it powers down yet Parnia has seen it is not the case with the dead humans. …..and it oncevagain sure seems like Parnias got some more….

        Like

    • I thought the first part of this (written by the journalist) a bit of an understatement,”How these patients were able to describe objective events that took place while they were dead, we’re not exactly sure, just as we’re not exactly sure why certain parts of us appear to withstand death even as it takes hold of everything else.”

      Substitute “we’re not exactly sure” with “we haven’t a clue”! With the last part of her sentence potentially solvable in physical terms. But I guess her article does suggest two completely different ontological positions.

      Like

      • “But it does seem to suggest that when our brains and bodies die, our consciousness may not, or at least not right away.”

        Trying her hardest to ignore the elephant in the room. Never do they correlate these reports or conclusions with thousands of years of religious belief in an eternal soul. The establishment position on this has yet to form, but I suspect that once the data becomes impossible to ignore, it will take some atheistic/buddhist/quantum mechanical route.

        Like

      • just_man on said:

        To Ben: what do you mean by ‘atheistic/buddhist/qm route’? Does existence of some form of consciousness after brain death implies certain religion’s statements are correct or incorrect?
        Does it somehow means there is an eternal soul? Even not all Christians accept it, and, for example, 7-day adventists have more reasons to reject it than the hardest atheists and materialists:) having as an argument not only ‘mind narrowness’ as you call it but Satan’s illusion as well.
        So we all need to know not only that consciousness is independent of brain and lives after brain death but also what form it takes exactly and HOW it exists.

        Like

      • Just_man. I think the incontrovertible evidence that will come out of the AWARE II study, namely that the conscious can exist outside of the body will be interpreted in numerous different ways, with everyone, including myself, looking to fit these findings into their world view or religious outlook. The establishment wants a world without a specific personal God, as this challenges their authority, and Buddhism best suits this position.

        I am not going to say why I believe NDEs support my beliefs here, because I don’t want to derail this blog, but my book goes into that.

        Like

  37. Egyptian is probably oldest at least oldest written

    Like

  38. Ben, I hope you don’t mind I put this long transcript down I did from Prof. George Ellis, a Quaker and colleague of Stephen Hawking. It’s to do with purpose in the universe and he addresses the issue where some scientists live in an “intellectual silo” where two views never mix. Basically, science says the universe is purposeless yet we live lives of purpose. Your third sentence reminded me.
    I’d rather of not shortened it as he leads up to the “punch line”!

    It shows to me that philosophy is valid, not just physics is valid … because physics cannot answer seemingly meaningless questions which *must* logically be meaningless for only physics to be right.

    from https://finetune.physics.ox.ac.uk/videos/fine-tuning-conversations-george-ellis-and-ard-louis

    which I think is a fascinating project.

    Video is Explaining Fine-Tuning and this starts at 12:35 minutes.

    George Ellis and Purpose in the universe

    George Ellis
    You see, the question about purpose is a really very interesting one and the scientists turn around and say look at the laws of nature there’s no purpose in the laws and I agree on that the laws of nature the whole point about them is that there isn’t any purpose so then they say therefore there’s no purpose in the universe which is kind of a bit of a generalization. So you look at them and say just hang on a minute you came into the office in order to discuss this mystery, wasn’t there a purpose behind this and yeah there was a purpose in that, and you say by the way you built the Large Hadron Collider in order to discover, wasn’t there a purpose in that and say yes there was a purpose in that. But you just said there wasn’t any purpose in the universe and there’s something very, very funny going on there and the answer of course is you say well purpose is an emergent kind of quality. Well, is purpose written in to the structure of atoms and electrons and I don’t think that purpose is, I think it’s an emergent property and it takes us back to these possibility spaces. There‘s a possibility space for physics about the kind of physics that can happen which is another way of writing the laws of physics, there’s a possibility space for biology which governs the kind of things that come into existence in biology and it covers all possibilities, all the ones which … and there’s a possibility space for thoughts, you can only think a thought because it’s possible to think the thought which sounds like a tautology but actually it’s a very deep kind of statement.

    Ard Louis
    That’s a very big space.

    George Ellis
    It’s a very big space.

    Ard Louis
    Includes silly thoughts.

    George Ellis
    Yeah. But it’s finite.

    Ard Louis
    OK.

    George Ellis
    And the reason at a certain level, the reason that purpose comes into existence is because it is possible for purpose to come into existence. Now that’s an extremely deep statement. Purpose couldn’t come into existence and it does exist and I think it’s incontrovertible that purpose exists. It couldn’t come into existence unless it is possible for it to come into existence and so the deep question is why is there a possibility of purpose coming into existence. And that’s where the metaphysics and now we’re way out of science and the point about this is so the scientist says but look at my data I’ve got these telescopes and these forces and these strengths and my response to them is but look about this library, what are all these books in this library, look at history, look at ethics, look at aesthetics and so on, you are choosing to ignore all of that data and say that’s all irrelevant to the nature of the universe. Well if you are in on that basis so I’m only going to look at that little bit of data and I conclude the universe is purposeless, well of course that was because of the data you choose but if you at all of the data in all of these books around us here, the history of humanity, the history of ethics, the wars, the love, the hate, all the rest of it, there’s a huge amount of other data which is data about the universe because it occurs in the universe and is part of the universe and you must take that into account too if you want to enter this philosophical territory. There’s no obligation on a scientist to enter this philosophical territory but if you want to come with a statement about purpose and the universe or not you do have an obligation to take into account all of this other data as well as the data which you get by your telescopes, your microscopes, your laboratories and your particle colliders.

    Ard Louis
    Because otherwise you’re essentially engaging in nothing-but-ery.

    George Ellis
    And the fact, people who say there is no purpose in the universe, they’ve got this weird kind of thing that there’s this barrier in their mind, they’re bipolar, that they’ve got this theoretical life where there’s no purpose and they’ve got this practical life where there is purpose and they have got absolutely no connection between them because they’re living in an intellectual silo and they swap silos when they leave the laboratory and go home.

    Like

    • Yes, I sometimes think of scientists akin to flees on an elephant. They have a deep and intimate knowledge of the details of elephant hide, but they have no idea what elephants are. Scientists have a deep understanding of certain aspects of science…the what…without being able to see the bigger picture…or the why.

      Like

  39. I for one think that even with the results just recently that have been revealed such as this video that I can assume that these experiences are not illusions, delusions, hallucinations or whatever. The most common excuse a non-theist will throw out is that these death experiences are not during a period of death but actually just the person’s brain creating illusions in it’s death throes. The catch is though is that the brain cannot even hallucinate at the points during where the experiences occur in the study. Why? Because the brain is dead. There is no brain activity. The brain is fueled by neurological activity which is measured as well as blood flow to the brain. During CA there isn’t either of those. Patients are on machines that measure EEG and EKG respectively. Both flatline during these aware periods. Saying you can hallucinate becomes an oxymoron because there is no brain present at the time to perceive an hallucination or delusion. So what does this mean? It means the person’s mind is not the brain. The mind is a field comprised of incomprehensible material (most likely quantum based) that uses the material brain as a receiver. I already find the Aware 1 results as well as the Oz presentation fascinating and am very excited for Aware 2’s results.

    Like

  40. You are very right. The skeptical claim now is it all occurs during wake up parnia closed that off. I guess that they will make claims about still alive but non communicating brain cells.At that point debate is over

    Like

  41. Gosh this Oribital Teapot Court Discord is cringy as heck. I wouldn’t join that server. It’s filled with eraserheads as I like to call them.

    Like

    • galaxyvoyager128

      Well, the teapot you refer to is in reference to the mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell. Anybody can look that up and see what he meant. But Russell was much deeper.

      There is this on him … “Bertrand Russell ultimately came to a neutral monist view in which events were the primary reality, and mind and matter were both constructed from them.”
      http://www.iep.utm.edu/panpsych/#SH2d
      This is under the section “Panpsychism”.

      Russell also wasn’t an atheist if you look at his comment “Many Agnostics (including myself)” in his essay What Is An Agnostic?

      Finally, Russell had a mystical experience … “Within five minutes I went through such reflections as the following: the loneliness of the human soul is unendurable; nothing can penetrate it except the highest intensity of the sort of love that religious teachers have preached; whatever does not spring from this motive is harmful, or at best useless; it follows that war is wrong, that a public school education is abominable, that the use of force is to be deprecated, and that in human relations one should penetrate to the core of loneliness in each person and speak to that.”

      Like

    • Sorry, I thought your comment was sarcastic! Apologies. Still, some refs. for anyone who want to claim Russell.

      Like

      • That’s interesting. Thanks for sharing. The Discord server though that’s named after him though really isn’t nowhere near as though provoking and I found it to be a bit cringy at times. There is a lot of religion shaming there for an instance. I’m just there because a frenemy of mine invited me there. I consider him a frenemy because sometimes he’s a nice guy to me but other times he just goes out of his way to make me angry. He tends to fluctuate between the two. I’m not really interested in that server to be honest so I just have my account sit there for the most part.

        Like

  42. If patients report seeing doctors at work or hearing their conversations, when they are supposed to be dead, they should have memories about certain events that they could not have if their consciousness ceased to exist at the moment of death.

    Would it not be more effective to gather evidence for the patient remembering real events that occurred after their death, by using manual or automated cameras instead? They could record the entire room, only when and as soon as the patient is pronounced dead. This way, it would be possible to verify that the patients memories were real occuring events and that they did occur when the patient was dead. It would also make the detection area for the target that the patient can see much larger (from an Ipad to the entire room), provide evidence for anything that the patient hears rather than only seeing and it would rule out the chance that the patient misses or does not pay attnetion to a small target.

    What do you guys think? I would ask Dr.Parnia this on Twitter but for some reason Twitter thinks that I am a bot, so they will not let me create a new account.

    Like

    • just_man on said:

      You mean to have camera that would capture the whole process of resuscitation?

      Like

    • Samwise, I think you make an excellent suggestion. My caveat would be that few people dispute that the patient’s accounts are accurate, as they are often verified by the physicians and nurses, what is disputed is whether or not the patients somehow catch a glimpse…while they are dead (yes I know)…of what is going on, or that they saw the characters before or after and made up things from their knowledge of ER. The random images on a tablet may produce less hits, but they will be much more powerful in providing proof. The only way this could be “faked” would be through researchers cheating, but if sufficient internal “blindness”, which I have described before, is built in, then this will be rock solid.

      Having said that, something like you describe would be a good secondary measure.

      Like

  43. Samwise on said:

    Just_man, Yes exactly.

    Ben, I agree with you that the tablet is a powerful providing proof but the quantity of evidence that can be gathered with cameras maybe more powerful. It is hard to rule out that the patient has accquired their knowledge after they were pronounced dead if the patient recognizes people or objects, because they could have seen them before or after they were pronounced dead. However, if the patient recognizes an event that occured, or the actions or words of another person, one could go back and look at the recordings to see if it did occur and if it in fact occured before or after the patient was pronounced dead. Similary if an object or a person enters the room after the patient is is pronounced dead and the patient remembers it, one could go back and verify it.

    Like

    • There are many accounts in the literature of events like these, and the argument against them is never that the timing was wrong, or that the events didn’t happen. The hard road is often the best road…besides, I think he has hits from the tablet, so this a moot point.

      Like

      • just_man on said:

        We know about these accounts only from other people, but in this case we can at least check it by ourselves through the camera which is a neutral observer. But we should also be aware that any video can be edited.

        Like

      • I’m not against it at all, I just think from an evidence perspective, the tablets are going to be very hard to argue against. Having this sort of thing as a back up would only help, but I do think there might be privacy and ethical issues that could present big barriers…certianly worth trying though.

        Like

  44. I think most if aware1 would be on camera. Most emergency rooms are but Parnia would then have gotten Hippa approval to use them in A1 and 2. I am sure he did . He seems very meticulous.

    Like

    • It wasn’t mentioned in the paper, or the design. These things are not straightforward and would need patient and employee consent, especially if the system was not specifically designed to be part of the study. It is one thing displaying an image, but quite another to take one in terms of ethics and rights.

      Like

  45. Samwise on said:

    I hope that you are both right.

    Like

  46. I was just taking a nap, and i know when im about to wake up between the semi asleep semi awake stage i can do things. I forced myself to “go out of my body” and walk around the house, hoping for veridical perception. I went to my bathroom and looked at the barcodes, but numbers changed every time i looked at it and there were weird things around all the rooms. Also I could tell it was dream like when I woke up (but I could control my movements during the OBE).

    I managed to do this twice, intentionally forcing myself to “get out of my body”. It doesn’t sound like any veridical OBE I’ve read, there were a number of things I knew didn’t exist in my house and I knew my house down to the smallest detail. So there are definitely hallucinatory OBEs, Olaf Blanke probably got these types are concluded all OBEs are hallucination.

    I would give my kidneys and liver and lungs to have a real veridical OBE with 20 digit verification.

    Like

  47. Samwise on said:

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/892424/life-after-death-what-happens-when-you-die-is-heaven-real-proof-nde

    The article above is old and from a non scientific source, so I was wondering if anyone knows if the following quote from the end of the article is accurate, “Dr Parnia says there are scientific explanations for these reaction, and says seeing people is not evidence of the afterlife, but more likely the brain just scanning itself as a survival technique”. I thought that he had the opinion that the experiences occur outside the brain.

    Like

    • That article was probably assembled on an i-pad while Sean Martin (the reporter) was negotiating the drive through at Mcdonald’s. That’s about the level of care that has been taken to present it.
      Some of the content from Parnia is accurate. The bit about the brain scanning itself however, has either been made up or copied from some sceptical sound-bite.
      It seems not to matter to many journalists as long as they get their fee and the number of hits they desire.

      Like

      • Agree with you Tim. I doubt that Dr Parnia ever said that. The Express is one of the worst tabloids in the UK. Even if he did say it, there may be scientific theories, but they are most definitely not proven or even sensible.

        Like

  48. Hilarious Tim.Its the express. I think they had another headline that it was dull. I wont take their clickbait.

    Like

    • Thanks, David. It gets me down to be honest. The term ‘near death experience’ is now widely used to mean many different things but hardly ever what the person who coined the term intended by it. And many of these articles are just basically rubbish, sadly.

      Like

Comment navigation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: