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

Summary of Sam Parnia’s NYAS “What happens when we die” event:

Both the afternoon presentations and the evening panel discussion were livestreamed. Only one talk was excluded and that was a presentation by the “Pig Brain Team” from Yale, presumably because there may have been some proprietary technology discussed. They are available to view at the NYAS site now.

Recording of Livestream 1:

Recording of livestream 2: 

Recording of livestream 3 (evening panel discussion):

There was a lot of very interesting content in the afternoon session which can be bucketed into the following themes:

  1. History of resuscitation medicine
  2. Advances in resuscitation medicine and preserving the brain
  3. The ability to revive consciousness, and to what extent depending on damage to the brain
  4. The transformative nature of NDEs

I am not going to go over much of it since most of what was relevant to this blog has been discussed many times before. However, it is what was absent that was notable to me. There was no mention of the data from AWARE II that was presented over the weekend at the American Heart Association meeting and the subject of previous posts. I understand that the focus of the day was resuscitation medicine, but NDEs were discussed and I found it a bit odd there was no mention of the 2 abstracts at AHA considering this was the first data to come out of Dr Parnia’s landmark study. There was the opportunity to pose questions in the comments section on the livestream, and I did ask about the abstracts but there was insufficient time to answer the questions in the room, let alone on line.

The only tidbit that came up was regarding the sounds generated in the Bluetooth headsets. He described it as “timed sounds” that were delivered through these headsets. Does that mean that sounds were administered intermittently and for a timed but limited number of periods, or that there was a continuous stream of sound with the different kinds of sounds timed, and the time at which they changed recorded? This is very important with respect to the direction of the discussion initiated by Tim we had regarding abstract 287 at the AHA meeting. If the sounds weren’t continuous then the fact that one or more of the 4 “NDErs” heard voices from the room would potentially be less relevant, given the findings from abstract 387 depending on whether there was corresponding EEG and rSO2 data that showed sufficient levels of oxygen to support consciousness. I suspect we aren’t going to learn more at this stage and will have to wait till the data is published, which may be many years from now!

Dr Parnia did refer to a number of new studies that will be starting in the next months and years:

future studies

The one that is of most interest to me is the study looking into consciousness during deep hypothermic arrest. This is effectively COOL II. At this stage they are just performing a pilot study to help inform them on design for a larger landmark study. It looks unlikely we will hear anything from this for a number of years, but this has the potential to produce data more efficiently than AWARE II due to the controlled conditions. Also the prospective study into children’s NDEs will provide interesting insights into the differences that have been previously discussed. This will take a long long time as thankfully children are much less likely to be near death, or actually dead, than adults.

He also presented some data that had been collected from going back over historical interviews from numerous NDEs. This has been done before in various publications in IANDS, but I suspect that his team will apply greater systematic and academic rigor. I wasn’t quite sure where these NDEs were sourced from, but they included a whole host of parameters beyond the simple core elements previously described.

Finally, Dr Parnia did get a bit agitated when describing the impatience of the likes of us! He did look at the camera, and actually said that he was speaking “to the camera”…i.e. some of us. Busted! He was insistent that this research takes a long time, that there are not always enough staff to attend CA events etc. This does not explain why he didn’t refer to the abstracts from the weekend, but we must give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that there are protocols etc that he must follow. He did say that there was more data now, but not that much.

I doubt he does come to this site, but if he does, I hope very much that our enthusiasm/impatience doesn’t in anyway hinder his work, or damage what he is trying to do. If it does in any way, then he must tell me. I would rather dial back on the number of my posts than risk his work. If not, as I suspect is the case given how he is disposed to going on TV and talking about NDEs, then he must recognize that it is only natural for people like ourselves who have a keen interest in his work to be eager to learn as much as we can, and express our frustration at not having all the answers now. As always we wish him the very best in his quest to shed light on the nature of consciousness before and after death.

The evening session was just a panel discussion on what had been presented and what they thought about the various different issues. This was very much focused on the resuscitation medicine side of things and potential ethical implications.

Overall it was enjoyable, but for regulars of this blog, nothing new unfortunately. Now I’m going to bed!

Edited to add the morning after:

While there may have been nothing “new” from the perspective of insights into the recent findings from AWARE II, there were a couple of things that happened in the meetings that have refreshed my perspective.

Firstly there was the testimony of the woman who had received CPR for an hour and the doctors were ready to give up, except one, who took over and carried on. That was 10 years ago and now she is well and living a full productive life due to that doctor and modern techniques. Really rammed home to me what an amazing job the likes of Parnia and his team do.

Secondly was the NDE account described by the ER physician Dr. Tom Aufderheide in the panel session in the evening. That was mind blowing and it reminded me of why I first became hooked on the subject of NDEs. We really don’t NEED the results of AWARE II, we have hundreds, if not thousands, of reliable human testimonies, many of them from health care professionals themselves, that one hundred percent corroborate the validity of the OBE. But more than that they attest to the spiritual nature of humans and our ultimate destiny.

On here, we, I, have become so obsessed with the hit, the smoking gun, and I realised last night that I may have lost my focus on the true wonder of these incredible accounts…they are mind blowing. I don’t need AWARE II. I know from my own experience that there is another reality beyond this life. I have experienced it myself, and through the accounts of others. I know I have a soul inside of me…my brain just sometimes forgets!

Anyway, we will continue to follow developments, but Dr Parnia said to the camera, to us, that we must follow the NYU website for any updates. As much as I respect and admire him, I think I will continue to rely on the great contributors here like Tim, David, Eduardo, Z, Samwise, Chad and others who keep finding things on the web now that might just make it to the NYU website in a years time!


Single Post Navigation

214 thoughts on “Summary of Sam Parnia’s NYAS “What happens when we die” event:

Comment navigation

  1. Eduardo on said:

    It is true what you say Ben that without EEG and rso2 data it is difficult to appreciate and assess the 4 cases of 387. But remember that Parnía concluded the article by saying that: “EXTERNAL CONSCIOUSNESS AND INTERNAL COGNITIVE ACTIVITY MAY OCCUR DURING THE ARREST CARDIAC”(paro cardíaco) ….


    • Eduardo on said:

      Returning to what I said before, in case there have been intermittent (and not continuous) sounds, I believe that Parnia and / or her team must have checked the rso2 and the EEG before issuing such a conclusion.


  2. I skimped through video 1 and watched 3 in more detail. Anything in video 2? Everything ive watched i already knew, all that i took is he doesn’t have a tone against NDEs. I wish i was born in 100 years time when this issue is completely resolved. Better yet i wish i was never born lol.

    Has anyone thought maybe some people are indeed conscious during CPR because of good oxygen levels? AWARE 1 had 40% awareness and most didn’t sound like the classic NDE, maybe they were hallucinating because they were in v fib not true CA and good CPR is being performed. With these cases its hard to tell if they’ve really had exactly 0 blood for over 1 minute (the only way to guarantee no consciousness). So maybe there are a collection of different experiences that are lumped together, some are hallucinations and some are (hopefully) consciousness without a brain?


  3. He stated the electrical activity was different from the living brain. It seems to be seizure firings. We figured that out some time ago.


  4. He also said it may be a century of more before this is understood. I am optimistic on anti aging drugs but not THAT optimistic.


  5. I was thinking about negative outcomes like PTSD may have to Do with the treatment and poor health rather than the ADE.
    I am going to post a diagram that shows the auditory neurobiology and you will see why we have a hit.


  6. As I stated above with the link to a study, wakeful consciousness during CPR is a known phenomenon and nothing really new.
    Very good insights on what happens below certain rsO2 levels come from G-LOC studies. Below a certain threshold, people get so called dreamlets, which are dreamlike experience under lack of blood supply to the brain. Dreamlets include experiences like swimming, eating with the family etc.

    So what follows?
    We have some (varying) thresholds of rsO2 where we are awake, dreaming, unconscious (minimal perception). But there is a threshold we reach in cardiac arrest which leads to a completely new phenomenon and that is the near death experience. Independent of the OBE, this experience is always related to the fact that you are dead and that you have to go back at one point. In dreamlike states such in a dreamlet, you have everyday scenes and you see very often people who are still alive and very seldom dead people, you do mostly not recognize death. In NDE the opposite is the case, you know or get told you are dead and the complete experience is related to this fact. When you see known people, these are mostly dead relatives or friends.
    To explain this intentional structure without any reference to a (“otherworldly”) experience is hardly to do.

    You can roughly correlate experiences to certain brain activities, but intentionality and the retentional-protentional structure of consciousness cannot be built-up by brain activity. A neuronal state is only present and in the next moment another without any reference to something like a past, whereas the subjective experience has a time horizon.
    So, we know, that experience can be triggered by neuronal activation, but also neuronal activity can be triggered by activity coming from the conscious subject. The experience itself is something completely different and cannot be built-up by any neuronal states.


    • If I’m correctly understanding what you are saying, I agree Peter… Experience is contextual and built up from – what we think of – as past experiences as well as the present (and in some way the future I suspect).

      It seems very likely to me… that there is some mechanism(s) within the brain which is roughly isomorphic with the shape of the brains classical networks. And this mechanism provides sufficient isolation to allow non-classical coherence (adding up), and interference.

      Neurons mainly seem to move classical data back n forth between the organism and the brain. But we’ve learnt to manipulate stuff in what we currently call spacetime, for example… writing a note to oneself to remember to collect a dress from the dry cleaners.

      A toy example…. when we see the note again, it triggers the classic network, weighting the networks in reproducible way. But this pattern of weighting also intersects some non-classical mechanism which is isomorphic with the classical networks, allowing some type of non-classical adding-up to take place.

      Suddenly you’re connected – via the note you wrote to yourself – to the experience you were having when you wrote the note.

      In my view, my experience is there. In a humongous non-classical calculation of all matching patterns that intersect my network. It’s not really in the brains classical network as we currently understand it.


  7. Chad you are right, there was nothing new really from our perspective. Be interested to see your diagram David. However, it wasn’t totally fruitless and I have added my thoughts on why to the original post.


  8. I think that Lukas brought this up in the previous post, but towards the end of Q&A in the first livestream Parnia mentions something about finding neural correlates or pathways for OBEs. Did anyone else find this peculiar? I’m trying to decipher the meaning on that one.


    • I do find it peculiar but ive seen him say this last year, and in an article that was from 2014-2015. He remarked about how love can be induced by neurotransmitters but it doesn’t make the experience not real. [i]Maybe[/i] he means certain neurotransmitters cause consciousness to separate from the brain, i mean if afterlife is real there still has to be some physical mechanism to “liberate” consciousness from the brain.


      • It does seem a little contradictory, but maybe I’m just reading too much into it. I think that he should have clarified what he meant by real and not real. Skeptics have long conceded that NDEs are “real” in the sense that people really do have them, they’re just a brain produced phenomenon.


      • Eduardo on said:

        @Chad, ….or several mechanisms, Chad.


  9. Very good post (summary) Ben and once again thanks for the kind words. I haven’t been able to see anything other than the first video last night (GMT) so I’m going to go through them over the next few days but I understand (as you said) there isn’t anything new.

    From what Lance Becker was saying (or alluding to) CPR has never been performed so effectively, so maybe it isn’t that surprising that prolonged CPR has produced some markers of conscious brain activity in one or more patients.

    Personally, I don’t see how that explains veridical OBE’s/NDE’s, though. If any sceptics would like to inform us how some alpha brainwaves during CPR can give you a birds eye view with accurate perceptions out and above the physical body, sometimes through the wall/ceiling and down the hallway, I’d be sincerely interested to hear it.

    I suspect Parnia does get a bit ‘ticked off ‘ with people asking him leading questions (which he has mentioned in the past) but I don’t think anything you (Ben and others) have asked him was unreasonable, bearing in mind how important and fascinating this whole area is.

    I sometimes think I’m becoming almost like a seal, waiting for the next sardine that Parnia is permitted to throw in our direction…and it’s not necessary. We already have a mountain of very persuasive evidence even without ultimate “proof ” (if that is ever obtained)

    The reality is that WE (the lay public) can’t be IN on this. We’ve just got to let him get on with it. Best of luck to him, he deserves it.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Werner Bartl on said:

    what do you say to cheries, report?


  11. Hi all,

    This is my first post on this forum. I also follow Dr. Parnia’s research, which I think is fascinating. One of the things I noticed with yesterday’s forum was that Cherie Aimee did not share her NDE, although she has shared it in detail other places. I was wondering about this. I found what she shared of course very compelling and I suppose her remarks were tailored for the audience. I just wanted to clarify that she did in fact have a very deep NDE – but in some ways with elements that might not be considered ‘classic’, for example review of multiple lives, etc. see:

    Was anyone else struck by this? I suppose it might not have been the right time & place for her NDE story, but I for one was interested. Anyways I thought the forum was great! Kudos to Dr. Parnia – truly I think what he is doing takes courage. Lucky for us it was live-streamed! 😉


  12. Admiral on said:

    Ben, would you mind telling us a bit more about your experience?


    • @Admiral. Since you asked.

      My experience wasn’t an NDE, and I would classify it as a dream, although it had two aspects that overlap with NDEs.

      When I was about 18 years old I had a dream. In this dream I woke up and everything was completely normal. It was my bed, my bedroom. Usually in dreams everything is peculiar, but not in this one. Then, for some reason in my dream I felt compelled to get out of bed get down on my knees and say the “sinners prayer” which is basically considered a conversion prayer for Christians. At this stage in my life I hadn’t become a Christian, but was curious.

      The moment I finished the prayer, the room I was in disintegrated, or exploded, before my eyes and I found myself in a place I couldn’t see but I had a sense of. It felt like some kind of hall or cavern, and there were a number of people in it, all looking at me, but there was one particular being that dominated all of my attention. This being filled every single particle in my body with love. I had never felt such love and it was returned perfectly. This lasted for an indeterminate time then I awoke.

      While I considered it a dream at the time, when I started reading about NDEs later I recognised two features that overlapped. The first was that my dream, especially the part when I had been in this cavern or hall, felt more real than anything ever had before or has since. NDErs often describe their experiences in these terms. The second is obvious. When I read accounts of people’s encounters with the being of light, their description of these encounters (besides the light bit!) was identical.

      While I would never claim this experience was more than a dream, it impacted me more than most dreams ever have. I felt that I met “God”…face to face, or rather spirit to spirit, and it was the single most spectacular experience I have ever had.

      Eventually I became a Christian, and I still am. One of the reasons why I stand firmly beside my faith is not only that I had this experience because of a Christian prayer, but also because I have had many other encounters with this same being in the subsequent years through Christian worship and prayer, albeit far less intense. I never proselytise on this blog, but I will always be true to the experience I had then, and the experiences I have now through my faith that lead me to believe that Jesus was so much more than just a prophet. I believe he was who he said he was.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. Werner Bartl on said:

    from her seamles experience, I as an austrian do not understand English so well, but it would be interesting why she was allowed to tell her story in this context


  14. Werner Bartl on said:

    she has described her seamless experience exactly, that would interest me


  15. I think we did get our smoking gun in a way
    I only got the chance to see the panel but it was very significant for several reasons
    1. (the guy on the far right) I’ve seen him multiple times and he’s typically skeptical this time he was far more open and he even used the pink unicorn analogy (once you see a “pink unicorn in the medical field then it changes your world view he also mentioned the chance that our consciousness may be part of a larger electromagnetic spectrum.
    2. sam addressed two typical skeptical arguments one about low oxygen and one comparing the experiences to the similar effects of drug usage. He dismissed both arguments stating that these are not similar to what is occurring. He said that if it was low oxygen then when individuals received low oxygen then they would be thrust into these experiences which do not happen.
    3. Sam still acknowledges that consciousness apart from the dying person is a phenomenon that it happens but he just can not explain why how or what happens next.
    4. lastly, the story from Dr. Tom and the incredible thought reading NDE experience from one of his patients.
    (bonus) the people who could actually hear things during the aware 2 study while they had lower than acceptable brain activity.
    I think sam has swiftly debunked the naysayers, now everyone wants to know what consciousness is maybe that’s a bit more complex.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Yes. He really devastated politely the last question from a PhD student.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dr Tom’s NDE report was indeed very impressive. But i’ve been at this for too long, views about NDEs too seasoned to change, and i readily dismiss any anecdotes as “not good enough” even if i cant explain it in anyway. I’m sure some other veterans here share my sentiment, we want Parnia’s results asap.


    • @David but what Ben says is that if the random sounds emitted through the headphones (which were timed) were intermittent, we cannot be sure if the conversations were not heard with the ear when there were silences in the headphones and the EEG perhaps indicated cortical activity and the RS02 was perhaps 30% or more. Why are you so sure it was a hit? Can you explain more?


  16. Sure. That is why I posted the tutorial on the neurobiology of hearing. Hearing as you can see inn the tutorial is very complex . It requires the brain to process the sound waves and much as to go to The brainstem and auditory cortex. That requires communication across the brain . In 80 percent of people there is no brain activity. In the others it’s this weird seizure like pattern which is just not compatible. With an activity as complex as hearing.


    • Eduardo on said:

      Thanks so much David


    • That tutorial was very good, however, the link that Peter posted (and I actually made the subject of a previous blog post), proves that consciousness is possible when sufficient oxygen reaches the brain. This is why for me it is presumptuous to over interpret the poster from AHA. If all the people who heard something had high sRO2 then their “experiences’ could attributed to some form of residual consciousness. I think it is very unlikely they did, but until we know for sure, I am not calling any “a hit”.


  17. You bet . My summary of the AHA . There was somebody whose brain could could not be working who we have meds that damage memory but who accurately recalled a specific sound that their brain could in no way processs. But yet it happened.
    Now we are going to try COOL to see if we can do this in a controlled environment.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I am very excited about COOL II. I was disappointed when the Montreal study ended. Instead of the mud against a wall approach of trying to capture events from thousands of random CAs with all the chaos and trauma involved, this will be in a controlled environment, the patients will be consented before they go under, and may even think to look for the iPad if they have an OBE. It would be interesting to know how many centres they will do it in, and how many cases a week these centres do.


  18. Can someone explain to me what kind of results you are all waiting from Aware II? With all seriousness I am reading comments and trying to understand it and little lost. As I see comments from total excitement over NDE cases and I see mood going down because of abstract that confirms some sort of activity and brainwaves during CA.

    So for example – proof that conciseness is separating from brain with full visual or auditory ability? Or proof of afterlife? Or proof of reality of NDE experience?

    In the first case: if that is ordinary easy registering process by now we would have statistically proven data – Sam Parnia has been installing visual targets all 25 years of his career – not a one case was caught so far. Does it prove all NDEr are lying? Not at all, it just proves it can be very complicated process, could be rare one, could be that you need right angle, right screen, right height… now, would one case where someone reports floating and seeing target screen dramatically change overall skepticism about NDE, again – not at all. One case could be by chance, could be coincidental, could be artifact. In order to confirm this is actually happening event – you need tens of confirmed cases on a regular basis, if that would be so easy you would already have them. As an example – how many people know who is Charles T Tart and his case of OBE where patent where able to hit target 5 digit number? It happens like 30 years ago, still considered controversial and not taken seriously though it is a real case.

    On the other side, hundreds of NDE already reported verified visual and auditory perceptions, yet everyone waits when Sam will get it through his work, but again one case won’t change much, many – doesn’t look like this is realistic to get.

    Oxygen and brainwaves, this is very advanced look inside of shutting down process, but it is naive to think it will get you to candy and explain or confirm or refute NDE experience. First, no matter what it is it cannot be normal wakeful conciseness – brain at this event is in severely compromised state, whatever findings are they cannot explain structural thought process, not even bringing that what is “thought process”, as I will be accused lol in philosophy, yet any electrical or neurological activity in brain cannot confirm or disprove experience – just by definition. Those are two different things and so far, up until today there is no formula chemistry=particular thought, so it can indicate possible levels of alertness, and normality or abnormality inside of brain processes but that is all. Nothing else can be drawn from that. Statistically I would not believe all 10% NDE in CA are fitting precisely into 10% or 20% of some (mostly seizures like) brain activity. I bet you guys those 10% of NDE are distributed evenly between full spectrum thus 80/20 probability. Out of 4 NDE in his last research, 3 will get on total no brain waves group. It is pure math here, I wish it would have been 40 NDE cases, just to be little more confident, yet, let’s see how it will come out if we ever learn or it get published but it seems quite trivial.

    What I am getting it to is that there is a research that goes forever and it may shed the light on some aspects of this whole story with NDE, but it is already clear this phenomena is illusive by nature, it is known 40 almost 50 years, with little understanding, doesn’t take much to realize one research will not be conclusive, and two researches too, and even three. You need collectively massive effort over years, then you need some (quite materialistic) science to explain conciseness, then you need to re-prove it all 5 times in a row by independent researchers.

    Here are couple things that seems significant (to me):

    – phenomena is real no hesitation, it consistent, it repeats, it is verifiable, you don’t need targets, targets are needed for formal science methodology

    – there is phenomena and there is mimicry of this phenomena, and it seems in total volume actual cases of NDE are by far very small percentage of total, this is why you gonna see skeptics always, for one real case you will have 10 bs mimicking this and very hard time proving this. Also another side process that messing data up is the fact that people on a verge of death are getting medicated heavily then they are in messed up state with their brain in horrible state, so if you paid attention this is where Sam Parnia pointed out – total story is got collapsing into combination of actual NDE experience and then some actual hallucinations and visions through heavy layer of everything that going on. Go figure after what is NDE and what is not.

    – it is not understood and it will not be understood by conventional science in near future, it seems to me Parnia realizes that.

    – something fundamental is behind those NDE, similarity of experiences is very indicative toward this

    – some features are mind-blowing, like life review – this is clear indication of some underlying behavioral pattern that is required from people, it also indicates the possibility of repetitiveness of life experience, otherwise it makes no sense to go through life review if you are about to annihilate. One can say we can only see it from those who recover (we don’t know who didn’t come back and died had life review), which is true, but then again how it can be known you are coming back if this is absolutely accidental process. Either dying is programmed event or life review happening as there will be another chance (now or then). It can only makes sense if you learn something from it.

    – me personally: until conciseness is explained, no NDE can be explained, those are two closely convected items.

    Just felt like writing, I hope I didn’t bore you 😉


    • Oleg, excellent contribution and sums up where my thinking has gone since the symposium. I have been soooo obsessed with AWARE II getting a hit that I had lost sight of the bigger picture, but after Monday, and particularly hearing the NDE report by the ER guy, and then remembering all the incredible NDEs I have read about, and the two that I heard in very private personal reports to me…one from my Dad, and another from a girl I briefly dated who was very credible, I know that I personally don’t need any “scientific” evidence. I believe in it one hundred percent and it is consistent with my understanding of “life the universe and everything” that I have formed though other experiences and also scientific knowledge (particularly the origin of life).

      It is the Chad’s of this world, of whom there are many, who need the hit. But again, I think you may be right…one hit won’t be enough, they will want 10 or 20 and so on.

      Liked by 1 person

  19. Full OBEs are just get rare . Hearing things during brain shutdown is more common this the headphones. It worked the same rate as Aware 1 that’s why he needs to do something else. Like Oleg said the brain is not working normally during this and in most cases not at all so this is a hit.
    I understand his irritation Time and again he shows people are conscious when they should not be and they are given drugs that usually wipe out memory .
    When I first heard about these I never expected we would ever get to even one audio hit.
    To me it was over with the poster Sunday.


  20. I sort of did to see if this phenomenon was something outside of standard what you call materialism. On something like this though not in every case this is enough to falsify . We do not have a full fledged theory of consciousness what we have here are just really good observations and they tell us something is going on .
    And you said it Chad wants 10 but then it will be more.
    But that is not all bad. This forum is unique because while we admire the work we are out own sceptics.

    If you read what I posted that dark energy may just be a local phenomenon perhaps the Nobel committee might try to live up to our standards!


  21. bippy123 on said:

    David what do you think or Stuart hameroff and roger penrose orch or hypothesis of consciousness . Do you think it fits with what we see so far ?


  22. Yes Bippy. I have made some postings on that there is another theory involving Posner molecules and just last week there was a paper showing yet more quantum effects in biomolecules.
    Hameroff himself even cited audio in ADEs as a support for his theory . He said there is just no way the brain could process the audio.
    Patina is familiar and Hameroff of Parnia.
    Hameroff basically said consciousness is not just tethered to the brain based on observation now we need theory.


  23. Matter – save interference of a native polypeptide.
    Oct 31 on the arxiv.


  24. bippy123 on said:

    David the next question to ask is is this process directed or can it come about naturally .
    I know that hameroff said it could accomdate both a secular and theistic worldview but I’m having a harder and harder time believing that this process could come about naturally as hameroff and penrose keep pushing for .



    It sort of comes naturally in Buddhism….and their cosmology . I added a new paper from last week to get us thinking


    • Thanks for the link, i was thinking about these “relative realities” after reading about qbism, as time has been shown by Einstein to be relative why not facts about the world be relative too, it’ll resolve schrodinger’s cat paradox. This seems to put weight on that “points of view” exists in the universe, like how each person has their own individual conscious experiences not accessible to others, not even given complete duplication of their brain activity on the other person. I think consciousness and quantum mechanics, while one will not explain the other in anyway, are nevertheless symptoms of the same underlying misunderstanding about the universe, the misunderstanding that everything is just material stuff and all phenomenon can be derived from the behavior of subatomic particles. We find consciousness and QM weird because we try to think of them in terms of our everyday experience (even the best physicists), the experience of a material mechanical world.


  26. I want to go back to South Hampton. There was an article years ago that quoted a nurse who said it survival of death but it’s not what people expect or something very close to that.
    This would go back a very long time but that comment stuck with me.
    The media has not changed because the never followed up that comment.

    Chad generally agree. Just a nitpick. Despite its name special and general relativity are considered classical. That is why they are irreconcilable with Quantum mechanics.


    • Special relativity is, all quantum field theory are built on special relativity background. Irreconcilable is about gravity, there’s simply no quantum description of gravity that reduces to general relativity on large scales.


  27. To be quite honest, what ha been posted about how consciousness is possible during CPR even if there was indeed a CA pretty much undermined the modest, but definitely existing, confidence in the reality of the content of NDEs that I built up over the last years.
    Lets take the hit from AWARE Is taxidriver, which back then pretty much blew me over as I would never have expected anything like it. In light of the aforementioned discovery about consciousness during resuscitation, however, the taxidrivers case seems very demystified, so to say. Sure, he heard the machine, but so what? If the brainstem was active, then so where the brainstem reflexes – the patient hearing the sounds would be as exciting as me hearing the sound of me tipping on my keyboard right now. The visual experience of the bald man never was very strong anyways, but now he most likely just saw the doctor while shortly opening his eyes during the CPR process.

    I regret having put as much confidence in NDEs as I did, as it leaves feeling even worse off than I felt before. Then again, it looked so promising! Especially with Fenwick and Parnias insistence on that CA pretty much should equal “no conciousness”, assuming physicalists views of mind-brain correlations. They both did so on a solid basis! But I guess thats research for you, sometimes just a small discovery is needed to overturn long held convictions


    • bippy123 on said:

      Jonas your forgetting the fact that the patient in aware 1 was at a vantage point at the corner of the room , doesn’t sound like a vantage point that’s coming from someone that’s opening his eyes and looking up and seeing the doctor .


      • It does sound like a possible flashbulb memory. Keep in mind, OBEs, albeit odd ones, have been induced in conscious patients. What they saw with their eyes was morphed into what they “saw” from their pseudoposition floating over the bed.

        What Raf said under the post about consciousness during resuscitation is true. If it is right, then everything claimed by Van Lommel, Parnia, and other researchers has now been given a perfectly capabable physicalist explanation. In other words, NDEs as evidence for an afterlife have been discarded, and people like u should move on and admit that they have been wrong.
        Parnia changed his tone as well now, from ADEs to TDEs. He always held to the opinion that even if NDEs would be explained in terms of brain chemistry, that that would not change their beauty. I disagree with that. A beautiful drug trip bears no existential weight for me.

        The last word has not been spoken yet. Theres still a lot missing, the posters were just teasers. We will have to wait


      • I share the considerations with Chad on blood flow during CPR. Right now, to me that is, it seems like Woerlee of all people was right


    • @Jonas

      “Sure he heard the machine, but so what ?” So what ? This man’s brain could NOT possibly have been working at the time. Why ? Because he was being shocked by an automated defibrillator.

      The defibrillator (machine) was detecting that his heart had gone into ventricular fibrillation which is the same as complete heart stoppage. The heart flutters/quivers in a chaotic fashion (apparently) and no blood is pumped. The patient is clinically dead…that is why the machine is shocking him and the machine cannot make a mistake. (the machine takes a minute or two to analyse the information before advising)

      At this time, there is no CPR being done, just the shock delivered by the pads attached to the man’s chest. The patient was shocked twice and the man heard the automated commands of the machine TWICE (I asked Dr Parnia to confirm this years ago)

      You cannot be conscious when your heart is stopped. There is no blood flow into the brain and therefore no brainwaves. The machine would not have shocked him if he wasn’t in cardiac arrest and no CPR was being done at that time.

      Furthermore, if the patient had somehow been conscious, he would have felt the pain of the defibrillator and would have reported it afterwards as being a terrible experience, probably leading to PTSD afterwards.

      CPR on patients in true cardiac arrest, doesn’t produce consciousness. If it did… patients would FEEL themselves being pummelled, having their sternum and/or ribs CRACKED (that is what occurs in CPR apparently). They would report it but they never do, except in very rare cases where the heart has been incorrectly shocked.

      Lastly, why has the detection of a few alpha waves in prolonged CPR in one or two cases (out of 18/19) caused you to believe that NDE’s are now a product of brain function ? I’ve got very good brain function right now (some might disagree ;)) but I’m not having a near death experience.

      A few alpha waves detected in prolonged CPR does not discount the vast amount of already accumulated data. (The patient was a social worker BTW, not a taxi driver. That was Joe Tiralosi who also had a profound NDE)

      Liked by 1 person

      • There was no CPR being performed in between the shocks?

        I dont know enough about neurology to know exactly what these waves signify. The point is, that before I was convinced due to how unambigious those cases were. CA = no consciousness. Yet there evidently was consciousness. This blew me away. But now, this certainty of CA = no consciousness is gone for me


      • @Jonas

        Cardiac arrest STILL equals no brainwaves after 10-20 seconds. We are talking here about ONE maybe TWO cases DURING PROLONGED CPR producing alpha waves, for heaven’s sake. Think about what you’re saying.

        What about all the cardiac arrest veridical OBE’s where the patients weren’t receiving CPR ? There are loads of those cases in the literature. Why does one patient with some alpha waves invalidate all the previous data ? I just don’t get this all or nothing desperation.


        You are now convinced by the materialist arguments that NDE’s are caused by brain function ? Okay, that’s fine.

        You do still have to explain how patients can see what is going on around, them, sometimes through walls and down the hallway, with the power of some alpha brain waves. Best of luck and no hard feelings from me, you’re a nice guy !


        Thank you !

        Liked by 1 person

      • that is an excellent point you made regarding CPR not being delivered during the defribblation and you mention that you asked sam that CPR was delivered twice- is it possible that CPR was delivered in between the two shocks so the patient then gained consciousness (here i am assuming the best case that CPR can induce consciousness) and was losing it while the machine was analysing whether to shock him again the second time


      • Jonas said > “There was no CPR being performed in between the shocks?”

        Yes there probably WOULD have been CPR performed between shocks. That is what they do (most but not all the time it depends–sometimes they just shock them).

        The point is though that once you stop CPR, the minimal/reduced amount of blood that was being forced up to the brain ceases completely. They have to stop CPR to let the machine analyse the rhythm correctly.

        At this point, while the machine is analysing the rhythm, there is no blood flow (at all) into the brain for a minute or two. The man’s heart was stopped. He was in ventricular fibrillation (analysed as such)

        Without blood flow into the brain, brainwaves are absent (apparently) and consciousness is not possible. And yet he heard the command of the machine twice to shock his stopped heart and that is impossible, physiologically at least.

        From what I remember, sceptics didn’t try to explain this case by appealing to some consciousness arising in the patient. They suggested instead that automated voices and noises from machines are nothing unusual in hospitals and that the man must have been aware of this or at least known about it… and confabulated the sounds into his NDE and then forgot he’d done it… and so on and so forth….

        However, that’s just being creative and evasive. It’s quite obvious that man heard those automated commands (he was an ordinary down to earth, credible witness with nothing to gain) and he also reported observing the back of the consultants head (noting that he was bald and wearing a blue scrub hat) from a position up in the corner of the room.

        From his position lying flat out on the bed, he couldn’t have seen him because there was a drape raised up in front of the patient close to his neck, sufficient to completely block his view of the events going on in his groin (catheterization) and on his chest.

        Jonas, I’m not saying believe me; just that these are the facts. Interested parties should make up their own minds what they might mean or not mean of course.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Thank you, Tim, for taking your time. This really answered some of my thoughts


      • Tim, would you say that this is why Parnia seems so unmoved in his opinion that he can not explain, in physiological terms, the veridical experiences?


  28. CA means no brain function period in 80% of cases and random firing in the rest so I have no idea what you are talking about. The audio hit occurred during CA.


    • But its not just random firing in the remaining 20%. Its random firing in 10%. Part of the other 10% left “are maybe not quite normal, but closer to normal”, to quote Parnia


      • Jonas said > …would you say that this is why Parnia seems so unmoved in his opinion that he cannot explain, in physiological terms, the veridical experiences?”

        Only hard line, closed minded debunkers say that all veridical OBE’s can be explained physiologically. Materialist sceptics, for the most part DO admit that there are indeed cases they can’t explain… but they still adopt the fall back position that the reports must be incorrect and they didn’t REALLY happen that way.

        The problem for them is that there are too many of these reports (which they label anecdotes) for them to all be incorrect or in error. There’s also too many medical professionals (with excellent credentials), who’ve personally witnessed these reports, from all the world.

        And the patients themselves are by and large ordinary reliable people, not cranks and nutters as some earlier sceptics tried to suggest. Why should NDE’s occur at all if it’s just a trick of the brain ?

        What is the point of the brain creating this grand illusion if it’s all just a complex brain fart before we are annihilated ? Without reasonable doubt, “something” extraordinary is going on, whatever it is.

        As to Parnia, he has to be very careful what he says, and I’m sure I don’t need to explain why. But what he has said is this :

        “That thing that makes us into who we are, call it your mind, your psyche, your soul, call it whatever you like, doesn’t seem to be annihilated in the first period after death, when there is no brain function to support it.”

        He’s done the research (latest research anyway) and that is what he says.

        My take on it is that everyone can draw their own conclusions, but bearing in mind that patients then report seeing a tunnel with a brilliant unearthly light at the end, along with landscapes and deceased relatives, it does tend to beg the question, what else could it really be ? If it’s an hallucination, it’s a rather impressive one.

        Liked by 1 person

  29. Bippy is right . I also explained why the auditory system was not working in any scenario.
    Parnia has been trying to get rid of NDE for some time.

    I am going to bring up new stuff. Before that people confuse what Parnia is doing with the Oximity. The oxygen doesn’t get the bringing it preserves the cells. The cells are not communicating better oxygen just means better long term survival because fewer brain cells died.

    Please look at the video. The chart we panicked over earlier this year was explained the way we thought.


    • Seems like, after having watched the video(s), I might want to backpedal a little bit on my defeatism


    • There are a lot of assumptions there which are questionable.

      If you’re measuring electrical fields using medical EEG consisting of a few crude metal sensors mounted on the skin of the forehead, then you can say with absolute certainty that you have a lot of neuronal firing going on in the brain. That’s certainly showing the brain is functioning in these cardiac cases.

      However, whether this functioning is the sort of highly synchronized medical EEG activity we find to be correlated with different types of consciousness is a valid question. But one has to be careful here, because the sort of activity we are looking for during medical EEG recording occurs over time… but more recent scientific studies show that in less common physiological brain states, the brain appears to be able to synchronize in very short temporal bursts, and that these may contain information.

      Even then, medical EEG is just too crude… you need invasive EEG (iEEG) with probes placed within the brain itself, and sophisticated laboratory equipment capable of recording very weak electrical fields with very high temporal definition. To do that you also need shielding inside Faraday cages.

      It’s also worthwhile pointing out that the NDE/OBE is very ‘visual’, and those visual areas of the brain are not at the front of the brain, but are right at the back of the head in the visual cortex.


      • bippy123 on said:

        Max even the deep brain electrodes in cardiac arrest placed in the 2013 study showed a burst of electricity but that only lasted for 30 seconds . After that no activity at all .if this is true then how do you explain the veridical NDE in aware 1 of the social worker that gave 2.5-4.5 minutes of conscious awareness during cardiac arrest .

        Liked by 2 people

      • In the 2013 study you refer to, the rodents were left to die naturally. Without any intervention from the researchers to resuscitate them.

        In the classic hospitalised NDE/OBE, it’s often some visual imagery which appears to come from a period during the resuscitation, which is recalled by the patient. Hence Parnia’s studies investigating ‘Awareness During Resuscitation’.

        However in the social workers case you mention with accurate auditory recall – medical staff *did* intervene, and indeed the period recalled by the patient appears to have come from the period of their resuscitation. However in that particular case, there may not be any particularly anomalous exchange of information to explain? It’s plausible their was sufficient energy to allow the recalled information to have come from our traditional senses.

        Obviously speculation… but as regards the classical veridical OBE during cardiac arrest, what I believe we should be looking for is a reduced energy ‘sweet spot’. Where the brain has measurably reduced EM field power – due to reduced neuronal firing. This sweet spot lies somewhere between the EM power of a normal healthy brain state, and cell death.

        What I suspect we need is for the EM field generated by the patients brain to become weak enough, that their brain’s disrupted networks can become vulnerable to resynchronisation by stronger compatible external EM fields that intersect those networks. But, not so weak, that there is insufficient energy (firing) to allow the patients brain networks to resynchronize.

        CPR during CA, can extend the potential period of time to hit the sweet spot.


  30. Well said Tim. Great point on the pain issue.I failed a CPR class years ago when mouth to mouth was required because of my asthma.But the chest compression required risks breaking ribs so that fact that a memory of the audio is recalled not they pain is so amazing just as Tim states.
    Never cross Tim. I know the theoretical stuff but he knows how this works!

    Liked by 1 person

    • @David

      Thanks for the complement but just to point out, I’m a layperson and I’ve never pretended otherwise. I do, however, study the data/research very carefully.

      My opinion is that brainwaves produced during CPR cannot explain veridical OBE’s; no expertise required, it’s just common sense.

      Liked by 1 person

      • You did an incredible job of explaining the Aware 1 hit. I have been following these things since a Readers Digest article by a CA survivor inn the seventies then I found Moody’s book but never thought there would ever be a hit like A 1 and what looks like another in 2.
        The Obes are just very rare. But hearing external events seems to happen more often.Parnia has done amazing job here.

        Liked by 1 person

      • bippy123 on said:

        Max actually as Tom explained the auditory response for the aware 1 social person came right before cpr , this has already discussed .

        I have followed your posts max and it seems like you have a bent towards a sort of materialistic explanation of some sort for ndes and it’s never been something that I could quite agree with (but that is your choice to believe what you want ).

        There’s just too much evidence that points to some kind of spiritual or immaterial explanation , especially with ndes experiences with people born blind who dr ring says are seeing through a process other then their eyes . He calls it transcendental vision .

        Or the peak in Darien NDE of Eddie cuomo .

        Maybe you just think of the spiritual as some form of energy .
        I myself like the orch or hypothesis of hameroff and penrose.
        I just don’t believe anymore that Ndes are being caused by the brain .

        Liked by 2 people

      • Bipp123… As I said, I don’t know if the auditory recall of the patient from AWARE I was anomalous (according to they way we understand nature today), or not. Closed headphones playing recorded timed messages will help here, IIRC… Aware II may be using such a regime.

        Also, I don’t know exactly what auto cpr machine/procedure was used by the hospital in that case… so can’t say when chest compressions and ventilation took place, in relation to the period of auditory information recalled by the patient. This wasn’t mentioned in the paper. It’s possible that chest compressions and ventilation took place before the machine shocked the patient. That would force some fresh oxygenated blood into the brain, which is what it is designed to do.

        However… I’m saying quantum coherent interference is the mechanism of our everyday shared experience. That’s the adding-up of matching patterns *non-classically*. Some mechanism within our networks appears to be doing something like this.

        Otherwise it’s impossible to explain simple things like how one learns patterns to read, and can then can read a book in a linear process, and experience it contextually in relation to spacetime. Or how one can write a note (create a pattern) to oneself, to remind oneself later to collect the dry cleaning – it just reactivates the pattern, and ones past (note writing) and present (note reading) experiences add up. Or why memory suppression drugs (Midazolam) strengthen the later recall of patterns that were experienced just prior to it’s administration, unless interference is present. Or why people can suffer from PTSD. Or why rodents shielded from magnetic fields behave like PTSD patients. Or how Harry Martindale experienced, a third parties experience of Roman soldiers tramping through the cellar of treasurers house, York.

        These observations indicate information is the important thing, and that information is probably not stored the way we think it is. Even though our current understandings of nature are very useful, they looks like they are going to turn out to be a completely inaccurate description of how nature actually works. Right now… Physics is heading towards such a new generalisation.


  31. I’m sorry, but honestly if there is activity in CPR I will never trust audio hits.

    Honestly, my belief in NDEs has been mostly shattered at this point. Nobody ever saw the targets in any study, either parnia’s or sartori’s or others.

    EEG is active during CPR. Van lommerl and many others always told, precisely, that EEG went flat during CA and wouldn’t come up during CPR. They were wrong.

    Sorry but I’ll be leaving the proponent side I think.


  32. Ok well bye then.


    • What about what Raf said there is wrong, though?


      • I posted a tutorial here on the way our audio system works and it’s every bit as complex as the visual. We just are more visual species.
        And it is getting tiring answering the same thing over and over.


  33. Ika Musume on said:

    Does a car with an engine shot to hell and back produce better gas mileage than a car with a perfectly fine working engine? That’s the thing with NDE’s. How can a brain produce an extremely vivid and what some call a “more real” experience than what we experience now, while it is hanging on by a thread? It makes absolutely no sense to believe that some tiny speck of brain activity during CPR could produce an experience much more intense than anything a perfectly healthy brain could produce.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Very good point. And as I have posted linked an so on hearing requires a processing route from the ear to the brainstem and back to very specific places in the auditory cortex!!!!!!!

      Liked by 1 person

      • bippy123 on said:

        David is the brainstem on at anytime during cardiac arrest .
        Please keep these great posts coming guys .


    • bippy123 on said:

      Ika it makes perfect sense to materialists who will grasp for any desperate straw then to follow the evidence to where it naturally leads .
      Was it Einstein that said science advances one grave marker at a time ?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Brainstem would be shutdown . I have no idea if some of those cells randomly fire . Also the paddles have a different focus than the compressions. They are trying to blast the heart back would have biggest on brain. But chest compression would give minimal blood pumping . And from Parnias charts 80 percent have no brain activity . The rest are those seizure like fires.
        Those don’t seem consistent with a complex task like hearjng. It was far less controlled circumstances that Hameroff called hits before Aware.
        I doubt it’s possible to tell if brainstem has these fires.

        But brainstem would be shutdown. Think about how much hounding hear while sleeping the auditory system is down with a function brain.
        How is a system plus an unknown memory system going to hear and remember and describe that detail seems later?


      • No that was Planck Einstein’s meme is only 2 things are infinite, (1) the universe (2) human stupidity.


  34. Also some of that activity may be related to depolarization . Memory and we know a lot less about it than the auditory system is connected to synaptic strengthening. That sure seems the opposite of what is happening in CA.
    Yet we have two people with very specific memories related to a comp!ex phenomenon called hearing while the brain is not working.


    • David, Im not trying to annoy you (just so you know), but above you claimed that the brainstem still was shut down. How do you know?


      • Are you doing neurology? Genuine question. The oxygen does not mean that the brain works better? Only that its survival chances are higher?


  35. I am an evolutionary biologist. But the neurology here is basic. Of course the brainstem the medulla is shutdown.
    Let’s just look at hearing . Before it gets to the medulla sound has to be translated . That is done by the hair cells . Those cells need neurotransmitter interactions so there would need to be electrical activity for that.BUT there have to be fine muscle movements in that process. I don’t see how the sound waves even get into the brain during any aspect of CA.
    So he has two hits. It’s over and he wants to see if he can learn more in these othee.
    He thinks it will take a century of work.


    • Interesting, thanks for answering, David.
      After having read the link you posted, I now understand that auditory experience is very complex too.

      The issue I take is not with that. Rather, its the small amount of people who, during CPR after a cardiac arrest, did not just have random seizure-like firing of neurons, but “are maybe not quite normal, but closer to normal” in their cognitive processes. To a layperson like me, this sounds like the brainstem might be working during that time, and that it is at those times that the auditory and/or maybe visual information is received.
      How can one be sure that there are no brainstem reflexes during that time?


  36. David you are wrong in one thing Dr. Parnia has said that there is 10 percent of people who have seizure like brain activity but the rest 10 percent are 10 percent of different brain states during CPR where there is even normal consciousness present. He says it during 1 hour and 30 minutes during the livestreams. I posted about it during the live stream event.

    Also I would not counting hearing a hit personally because skeptics were saying that during CPR you could hear so its more a hit for the skeptic side and not the proponent side.


    • To be fair, Lukas, but there is not normal consciousness present in that 10 percent. Imagine if that were the case, it would be horrible – CPR is a painful and (for the patient) frightening procedure. What Parnia said is that there were electromagnetical patterns there that were “not quite normal but closer to normal activity”. Thats a long shot from activities during conscious states, insofar as they (in contrast to the seizures) simply had a pattern at all.

      In fact, both opponents *and* proponents claimed that a person could hear during CPR. But, from a physiological perspective, does the opponents claim make sense? Given the link that David posted, about how complicated the hearing process really is, it doesnt seem like they were that justified in what they said

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jonas the problem here is that before when someone claimed that there is brain activity and a person can hear everyone on the proponent side said its nonsense.
        Now its a reality there is brain activity and people can hear.

        It was justified. There is even evidence that people in coma can hear:

        In 2011, neuroscientists using fMRI scanning technology observed brain activity in a man who had been in a coma for 12 years after a road traffic accident.

        For example, when they asked the man to imagine he was playing tennis or walking round his house, his brain activity reflected that he was thinking of doing these things.

        Scientists now believe that 15 to 20 percent of people in a so-called vegetative state may be fully conscious. Advances in technology mean that we are better able to understand what people are experiencing during a coma.

        A thing that most people would say is impossible because it is again too complex for a brain in a coma to process.

        My guess however is that there are many myths about the brain and that is the main problem what we are dealing here and that we actually do not know so much about the brain like we think and our models about it need to be changed.


  37. Yes Orson covered that in a previous post. It was certainly not the case in the Aware 1 hit. That is one of the details Orson emailed in the Aware 2 hit.

    If the sceptics said you could get up and dance and recite the alphabet backwards would it be true?

    No. You can’t hear with no brain activity. Yet at least one and probably 2 did.


  38. Right now I am watching Dr. No right now as Bond shoots Dent. He shoots him again and he reacts like he still has nerve transmission. I think that dates all the way back to Frankenstein that there is somehow loose nerve juice running around after death……seems to be like this new myth that sounds just float into the head.


    • You do not know if there is no brain activity to begin with during that period. So far the research shows there are other possibilities and it points that the skeptics were right in some ways which cannot be denied.

      Also it is odd that the person in question could hear but why did he not see then? If he could hear he should also be able to see no? Its odd and I believe there is some other mechanism at play here.

      As for AWARE I the so called hit is not impressive for me personally and like I said before only a visual hit would convince me but we did not get that.


      • Lukas, why did the hit in AWARE I not impress you? What about the visual component that has been verified, about the consultant being bald and so on?

        Liked by 1 person

      • To stay with AWARE I in this context, as Tim described above, there is strong reason to suspect that there is no brain activity during the time in which the patient was shocked. Said patient did have both visual and auditory experiences.
        I find myself agreeing that it is odd. But its no less odd on physicalist interpretations.
        I agree though, that some things that the opponent said was right; this being that there is some kind of activity going on during CPR. But this seems to be irrelevant to the verified case in AWARE I, then

        Liked by 1 person

  39. Yes he is trying to impress you and failed.


    • Nope just the opposite. Dr. Sam Parnia showed that there is no easy answer to NDEs that there is more to this research and the results show that our understanding of the brain is based on a lot of myths and our models need to be reworked and that death is a really slow process in the end with many unknowns.


  40. Why did the AWARE I story did not impress me? Here is the whole story:

    (Before the cardiac arrest) “I was answering (the nurse), but I could also
    feel a real hard pressure on my groin. I could feel the pressure, couldn’t
    feel the pain or anything like that, just real hard pressure, like someone
    was really pushing down on me. And I was still talking to (the nurse) and
    then all of a sudden, I wasn’t. I must have (blanked out). . ..but then I can
    remember vividly an automated voice saying, “shock the patient, shock
    the patient,” and with that, up in (the) corner of the room there was a
    (woman) beckoning me. . .I can remember thinking to myself, “I can’t get
    up there”. . .she beckoned me. . . I felt that she knew me, I felt that I
    could trust her, and I felt she was there for a reason and I didn’t know
    what that was. . .and the next second, I was up there, looking down at
    me, the nurse, and another man who had a bald head. . .I couldn’t see his
    face but I could see the back of his body. He was quite a chunky fella. . .
    He had blue scrubs on, and he had a blue hat, but I could tell he didn’t
    have any hair, because of where the hat was.
    The next thing I remember is waking up on (the) bed. And (the nurse) said
    to me: “Oh you nodded off. . .you are back with us now.” Whether she
    said those words, whether that automated voice really happened, I don’t
    know. . .. I can remember feeling quite euphoric. . .
    I know who (the man with the blue had was). . .I (didn’t) know his full
    name, but. . .he was the man that. . .(I saw) the next day. . .I saw this
    man [come to visit me] and I knew who I had seen the day before.”
    Post-script – Medical record review confirmed the use of the AED, the
    medical team present during the cardiac arrest and the role the
    identified “man” played in responding to the cardiac arrest.


    I am citing it from the AWARE I study. The main reasons why I do not take this case as something special are these:

    1. The patient was conscious during talking to the nurse and then blacked out. This is more like a scenario when a person is loosing an gaining consciousness then a real blast OBE.
    2. His whole description is nothing phenomenal actually all these things like blue scrubs which doctors normally wear and can be seen on TV on many movies. Its nothing concrete.
    3. The baldness thing is also nothing special to me because most of the doctors in the field who work there are old and surprise bald. If he would describe something more concrete that would be more interesting but he described trivial things so sorry that is nothing special for me.
    4. The person who described this experience himself claimed he could hear if you can hear you can create a scenario from it by your brain. Its like dreaming when you hear something or you are simulated by sound during dreams your brain can create scenarios.

    So again if there are no visual hits then this means little and it would not convince those who seeks to know the truth.


    • @Lukas

      Not so fast my friend 😉

      The person WAS conscious and talking to the nurse, correct. But then his heart stopped, probably from the intervention of the cardiac catheter (the wire they push up into your heart through the groin).

      It doesn’t matter what the scenario is in general. Specifically, this man had just died (because he was in cardiac arrest)

      Lukas said > 4. “The person who described this experience himself claimed he could hear if you can hear you can create a scenario from it by your brain. Its like dreaming when you hear something or you are simulated by sound during dreams your brain can create scenarios.”

      He couldn’t have heard physiologically (with his ears). That’s impossible. His heart was stopped and he wasn’t receiving any CPR. The machine advised SHOCK THE PATIENT after a period of analysis . Only when the shock was delivered would blood flow begin to move again. However in this case it didn’t because he had to be shocked again 3 minutes later.

      The machine can’t make a mistake and wouldn’t have advised a shock in the first place if the heart was in a functioning rhythm and delivering blood to his brain.

      Remember 95% of the patients in cardiac arrest (in the poster) and receiving lengthy CPR, who had sounds delivered directly into their ears, heard nothing (during CPR as well)

      You can’t hear physiologically when the brain is not receiving blood (oxygen and glucose). Just as your computer will shut down as soon as it stops receiving power, so does the brain.

      Liked by 1 person

    • 1. Most awake people are conscious before they have a CA and fall unconscious, Im not ure what your point is here.
      2. Agreed. But keep in mind, this is a cumulative case. If the blue scrubs (as a veridical component of his experience) were on their own, then they would lack as an indicator. But they arent.
      3. Give me a break. Him correctly recalling the looks and the role of a person working on him dont count, because most doctors are bald? And that he was a chunky fellow? Of course what he describes is trivial, because it was an ordinairy situation with ordinairy people involved. There was one specific thing he recalled though, that he should not have known. Yet he did.
      4. The scenarios created by hearing alone are usually not correct recollections of the events that indeed have taken place, with the right people at the right places, and the people looking just like what they did in reality. Thats what Parnia mean when he says that the (Near Death) Experiences can not be defined as hallucinations, as scenarios in hallucinations do not correspond with reality. In dreams, as you mention, or even coma dreams, this is not the case


  41. Tim:

    Nope the brain is not a computer far away from it and I know I was working in that field for a few years.

    Machines cannot make mistakes? Are you serious? I was working for Volkswagen as a programmer for their robots and my brother in law also worked on medical equipment for Siemens in Germany, those machines make mistakes and a lot of them and are faulty they are not perfect a miles way.

    Yes 95 percent did not hear anything but one or two did. This points out they had some consciousness if you want to point to that.

    Also it is odd that he could only hear but not see? How does that fit into the dualism camp?


    • bippy123 on said:

      Lukas , with medical equipment like this a mistake can cost a life so I’m sure there are special precautions being taken for this plus I’m very sure that they have implementations in place to where they would be able to see and detect afterword of thete was indeed a mistake because a lawsuits like that would be motivation for them to correct the problem in a hurry .

      If Parnia didn’t say thete was an error I’m gonna assume there most likely wasn’t an error . Now if you wanna assume thete was an error Lukas your more then happy to, but I don’t find it logical to assume in life and death situation where a few lawsuits cane make or break a hospital that thete would be a mistake like that that wasn’t even detectable afterwords .

      Liked by 1 person

      • I was just referring to the fact what Tim said that machines do not make errors. They do like humans do from my experience I know this.

        I know what would follow like I know that the patient was not completely in the blind in the first place because there is a law that you must be informed after surgery or any medical situation what has happened to you.

        Look I am not telling I know the truth. I am just pointing out that there are other possibilities how the patient could have learned this information or that there is a way he was not completely dead.

        Also I am just telling that this case did not convince me and it did not convince the world and frankly I am not surprised of that because it offers nothing new and nothing concrete.

        A visual hit would however give evidence for the dualism camp and that did not happened and personally that is the main reason why everyone is watching this research in the first place and is asking Dr. Parnia about the results. They want to know if there are visual hits from his protocol with the iPad.


    • @Lukas

      You are missing the point AGAIN ! Brains need power just like computers need power. Cut the power and they cease to function ! And many neuroscientists have always insisted that the brain IS indeed a very complex computer. Personally I don’t know if it is or it isn’t.

      Secondly, if the machine WAS faulty or in error, as in the patient’s heart was NOT stopped, then he would have FELT the horrendous pain of being DC shocked twice !!

      Those machines are very reliable and only fail when the batteries short out (on the portable ones)

      Good scepticism is always welcome, Lukas. Silly nonsense, just throwing out any scenario you can think of, is not. Not for me, anyway.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Tim and bibby good reasoned responses as usual. Btw Britannica online has a great and very understandable article on physiology of hearing too add to the summary I linked to. You guys are right A1’has a hit. I suspect we have one inb2
        Since we have no known way to explain that is all we need for the purposes of the study . That is why Parni a thinks we need differen t studies .

        Anyway great insights WashinGtonians bibby.

        Liked by 1 person

      • bippy123 on said:

        Tim also you gotta remember how do these hospitals know that the aed gave a false reading unless they went through it later and found out it was a
        False reading .

        Did Parnia say anything about a false reading anywhere in aware 1?
        I didn’t catch it .

        Maybe Lukas did .

        Lukas can you tell us where dr Parnia went back and found out it was a false aed reading ??

        Maybe we missed something ?


  42. Tim:

    Tim I am not here to convince you. I am just telling why I do not believe that AWARE I was a success because for me it was not.

    The whole problem is that the patient did not describe anything special and the more people like Dr. Parnia and others research death they find more evidence that it takes more time for the brain to die and that the brain can do things we would not held possible many years back that is my whole point actually.

    Also another problem with the anecdote is we do not know if the patient himself was not exposed to some other source of information – from doctors or the staff. I sincerely doubt that he was not informed after his surgery what happened to him.

    If you want to convince me Tim that there is something more going on and that we have something to a soul then it must be more and that would be a visual hit and that did not happened so far on the contrary we are learning much different things, things that you Tim claimed were impossible.

    Also you did not answer my question:

    If people can hear and it is not caused by the brain like it happened in AWARE II why cannot they see? Why did they just hear? You cannot have it both ways that someone only sees and hears and others only hear?


    • bippy123 on said:

      Lukas,your saying that because it was an audio and not visual awareness that it’s not evidence of consciousness being separate from the brain ?? That doesn’t necessarily follow .

      Let’s say that hameroff and penrose’s orch or hypothesis is correct and the soul is quantum info entangled to the brain within microtubules . Maybe what happened is that the quantum info within these microtubules didn’t leave the brain area yet even though the brain wasn’t functioning . This could be one possible explanation .

      So far I have to see any other viable hypothesis other then orch or even though it’s far from being a theory yet .

      Liked by 1 person

  43. Also last thing Tim I forgot to mentioned why I do not think AWARE I was a hit. The case in question which we are talking about is called Mr. A. It happened in 2011 and Dr. Parnia tracks him down in 2012 for more details and see if he can verify his recollections with the patients medical records.

    This is from Dr. Parnias book Erasing Death. So a case that is 1 year old and the person can be exposed to other sources is not a very reliable material to begin with. That is all what I have to say to this.


    • bippy123 on said:

      Lukas you also didn’t answer my question as to how a person who was born blind and science has determined they cannot even see on theurvdrrams could suddenly start to see during their ndes ??

      This makes no sense at all if ndes are being caused by the brain .

      Vicki umipeg saw in her NDE even though her optic nerve was destroyed at birth . This makes absolutely no sense for the brain caused NDE hypothesis .

      Or maybe aight is being caused by some other physical organ like the buttocks muscle ?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Bippy you just might be feeding a troll.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I think it does make sense that the brain is involved in her experience, otherwise I find it difficult understanding how Vicki’s accident NDE/OBE was in shades of light an dark, whilst the sighted seem to recall their NDE/OBE in colour.


  44. Are only people with CA and no other diagnosis considered for Aware II, or also patients undergoing operation for other reasons, but suffer from sudden CA during their surgery? Those should be under anesthesia, which would prevent for them to becoming conscious during CPR?


  45. bippy123:

    From what I read her NDE there is nothing particular special about. She did not describe anything of importance. She only described that there was a female nurse and a doctor but she claimed she could her and a person can from a voice know if its a man or a woman.

    She could not discern colors during her NDE. She was it black and white. Also another problem is that Vicki herself was very religious and had prior knowledge of NDEs according to Michael Sabom from what I read when this was a big topic.

    Vicki Unipegs two NDEs took place in a years apart and her last NDE which was recorded happened in 1973 and was recorded around 1997 to 1999 when Mindsight the book was released by Kenneth Ring. So you have 20 years to create or shape a story. If that is evidence for you then sorry for me it isnt. With so much time around its easy even for a blind person who can read to shape up memories.

    It has been demonstrated that blind people can create mental imagery based on other modes of sense. Thus a visual image is unnecessary for a blind person to experience mental imagery.

    Also it is very strange that even after 2 NDEs why did she not regained the ability to see then? After she was able to see once why did this ability not stayed with her if we can see with our minds?

    Also if you want to talk in this tone to me then its a shame and I will not continue this discussion.


    • I agree with you. There definitly should be more respect towards you in this discussion.


    • Actually, I think Vicki’s vehicle accident NDE/OBE is pretty special actually. Experiencing her OBE in shades of light and dark is a confirmation that the brain is probably involved in these experiences.


  46. Without going into the great detail people do above I definitely concluded from the Evening Panel Discussion from NYAS on 18 Nov that something new to science is involved here. Dr. Parnia talks still about people seeing things they shouldn’t be able to, Dr. Aufderheide says about listening to the patients to get answers. Life reviews are still not possible to explain, tunnels too (not O2 deprivation etc.), guides, dead relatives. Sam also says morality is really important here and how people change so much after the experiences.

    Liked by 1 person

  47. Just thought I’d add some things. The brain is very much like a computer. The current view within cognitive neuroscience (which studies cognition) is the “computational theory of mind”, under the mantra “the mind is what the brain does”. How thoughts and feelings come about are taken to be due to the constant grinding of neuromachinery (computations happening within the brain).

    Some people don’t seem to see the glass half full type of evidence. Aware 1 was certainly not airtight, but if there was an airtight case this blog wouldn’t be here anymore. All evidence of NDEs so far only add weight to the argument, they dont prove anything, dismissing them readily because they aren’t airtight is not how any good scientific researcher goes about doing things. Parnia’s latest articles do make me more dubious, but they are too little to go on, in particular he hasn’t mentioned anyone with visual OBE.


    • Hi Chad … “The brain is very much like a computer” – off topic answer!

      I think the problem with this is the matter (or energy) from which the brain is composed (applies to all matter) is not like a computer. It’s (so far physics-known) origin is in the quantum vacuum. So when any matter/energy lump is doing what it’s doing, inc. the brain, the root is from moment to moment (physics at least) the QV. Kind of like space is *in* us, not we are objects in space.

      A computer’s matter is also QV-based but *operationally* (in terms of input-output) it doesn’t use the QV for those calcs.

      I’ve read with a quantum computer (not yet properly made) it uses all the infinite many-worlds to do it’s calcs. (which is why it’s so fast) and then all the calcs. are brought together – so this is operationally different from present computers.
      Anyway (!) my POV is that whatever the mind is, it’s also going to be connected/part of the space (again loosely we know it as the QV from physics) which we depend on for our existence. Didn’t Galen Strawson once say we don’t know enough about matter to discount that it could have consciousness at it’s root? Then one doesn’t have to explain how consciousness can come from non-conscious bits (quarks, electrons etc.)


    • “Parnia’s latest articles do make me more dubious”

      What do you mean by that? And what articles do you have in mind?


    • bippy123 on said:

      Chad actually the only currently viable hypothesis for consciousness is hameroff and penrose orch or hypothesis of consciousness.

      And there is no concrete evidence that the mind is the brain . Remember that correlation isn’t causation.

      The reason why orch or is the only currently viable hypothesis on consciousness is that it has already produced some testable claims .

      The reason why cognitive neuroscience says the mind is the brain is that they are stuck in anaterialistic paradigm

      If out Stuart hameroff up in a debate against any cognitive neuroscientists out there

      Liked by 1 person

    • Couple of things…

      Alan, it’s not about what things are made of, it’s about how they function. Brains are computational devices like computer, meaning they take an input and give a (meaningful) output. Computers can be made of jelly, if people can magically make jelly function the same way as silicon they will be exactly the same as the computers we have. The current view in neuroscience is that brains are purely classical like computer transistors and quantum physics has no effects on them. And the many world interpretation is a highly speculative one, every interpretation of QM is. I know nothing about quantum computers, but you seem to be confusing interpretations of QM with QM itself (ontology vs knowledge). Yes Strawson said that, but that’s panpsychism not a purely materialist explanation, he’s saying we don’t know matter well enough to believe the way we model matter (as particles and force fields), is what matter truly is (difference between knowledge and ontology again).

      Jonas it’s the 2 that’s being discussed on here…

      bippy123, Hameroff and Penrose do not explain consciousness, they’ve merely pushed the hard problem of consciousness to QM instead of being a problem of computation (what the current mainstream view is). It’s not hard to see no description of physical systems will explain consciousness, quantum or classical. Mind can be consistently influenced by touching the brain, im sure for feelings/thoughts they are largely caused by brain activity. I’m not saying neuroscience is correct (you should all know that seeing how hostile i am to materialists), i was just pointing out the mainstream *dogma* is that brains are meat computers, which Lukas mentioned they aren’t.


      • Chad, it’s whether that pure function can produce consciousness – I keep hearing this has never been shown. Seeing a brain (and all matter/energy) with unknown ultimate matter/energy props. dependent on this QV (and as I said that’s only physics known about space) is different from the function of a computer (with which I agree with you). I also remember David Bohm said space had an energy which was connected to consciousness and that could be the source of insight – something he distinguished from thought. I think it was David Deutsch who that about quantum computers and how they work re the many-worlds QM interpretation.
        This is interesting – the link between the mind and quantum physics (2017 – BBC article)


      • When i said it’s about how things function, I meant in the context of brains vs computer. Brain are made meat, computers made of semiconductors, but the way they behave are similar, they are both computational devices. I dont understand what you are saying about QV, are you referring to the vacuum energy? That is far too weak to effect brain activity. Current view is that every particle is an excitation of a quantum field, one field for each fundamental particle, each such field has a non zero ground state due to the uncertainty principle, and the totality of this for all the fields is the “vacuum energy”. I dont understand what this has to do with the mechanics of brains, which was what i was trying to say that mechanically brains are like computers.

        Yes Bohm had some very non materialist ideas about QM, I haven’t read through his stuff properly. He mentioned something about “implicate order” and i think he linked it to consciousness? It feels like panpsychism, the explicate order is how things appear (particles, force fields) and implicate order is the inner property of things. But i might be talking gibberish here, dont know Bohm’s views well.


      • I know that many claim that brains are computers in some ways it can be that they are however but I do not agree and I think that the analogy is wrong.

        Computers do what they are programmed to do brains on the other hand can decide what to do. Yes there are similarities that a brain can store and learn new memories but that does not make it a computer because a computer without that algorithm to learn would not develop a sense to learn on its own.

        Robert Epstein, a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology said it the best way in my opinion:

        Senses, reflexes and learning mechanisms — this is what we start with, and it is quite a lot, when you think about it. If we lacked any of these capabilities at birth, we would probably have trouble surviving.

        But here is what we are not born with: information, data, rules, software, knowledge, lexicons, representations, algorithms, programs, models, memories, images, processors, subroutines, encoders, decoders, symbols, or buffers — design elements that allow digital computers to behave somewhat intelligently. Not only are we not born with such things, we also don’t develop them — ever.

        Also if we were computers we would understand the brain a lot better now because we created computers and we would not be surprised with many things we learn more and more about it every day. The brain is a very mysterious organ and we are just on the surface of it.


      • Just one final note Chad, brains are actually made of quarks, gluons, electrons essentially (QV-connected and to space – a quantum soup) but even though a computer is the same it doesn’t operate with these. It’s a finite hardware/software system designed by people. This at least has the possibility of explaining telepathy, precognition, NDEs, reincarnation evidence because you can kind of get outside the brain to an extended mind idea. Bohm was actually well aware of the parapsychology evidence so the idea of space having a kind of consciousness (he spoke of) is a good one. If you read his Thought as a System he talks of this.


Comment navigation

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: