What on earth is going on?
‘He and his colleagues have developed a working hypothesis to explain their findings. Normally, the brain has “braking systems” in place that filter most elements of brain function out of our experience of consciousness. This enables people to efficiently operate in the world, because under regular circumstances, “you couldn’t function with access to your whole brain’s activity being in the realm of consciousness,” he says.
In the dying brain, however, the researchers hypothesize that the braking system is removed. Parts that are normally dormant become active, and the dying person gains access to their entire consciousness—“all your thoughts, all your memories, everything that’s been stored before,” Parnia says. “We don’t know the evolutionary benefit of this, but it seems to prepare people for their transition from life into death.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/some-patients-who-died-but-survived-report-lucid-near-death-experiences-a-new-study-shows/
There is absolutely no scientific or other rationale that provides a basis for their speculation.
Let me repeat, in capitals: NOT ONE OF THE REDs REPORTED IN THE PAPER HAD ANY EEG DATA…LET ALONE EEG ACTIVITY. That is a fact.
On rereading the article, it is also clear that Scientific American are mixing their own interpretation with his musings on the cause of the EEG data.
AwareofAware 
The paragraphs you selected from the article are so hard to decipher. From reading the study, as you know, none of those who reported RED/NDE’s had any worthwhile EEG recordings, so as you put in this post it’s really confusing as to why he would equate this.
But then also, this seems to read in some sort of mesh between dualism and materialism. I truly think Parnia wants so badly for this to be a little clue as to how an immaterial consciousness interacts with our brains. It’s like, he has encountered people who have seen and reported things they could not possibly have known during their NDE’s so that has pushed him into dualism because he has encountered it multiple times in the past, and that’s not really something you can discount. So while these findings read straight materialistic at face value when reading these mainstream media articles, I think Parnia really believes there is something more fascinating underneath. The data however just isn’t there yet…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Michael,
I understand why you want to give him the benefit of the doubt. I would love to, but unfortunately I am a rational scientist who bases his understanding on evidence and rational pathways. I see neither here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What are your thoughts on what he is doing? His rhetoric is so hard to read. What are the facts? And why does what he says seem to be both materialistic and dualistic?
LikeLike
Ben, the scientific American article adds no new data compared to all articles that were published around April 2022, when the article on the dying man whose EEG was recorded came out. Parnia commented on that past article and again mentioned this “new” hypothesis, on some areas being active while the brain is shutting down. I remember very well I was really crossed cause Parnia Lab mentioned that they had found gamma waves in their study (which is absolutely false after reading results), they defended the gamma waves and linked them to their recently (back in February 2022) published study and it was absolutely false, since in that publication (the consensus agreement) they clearly dismissed gamma waves as having anything to do in the RED matter…. don’t you remember all that fuss? Didn’t he mentioned this “hypothesis”?
Only few months prior they were defending dualism in the Bigalow essay, with no new results of their own that could have shed light into the matter to say otherwise.
I barely believe comments in press. I don’t actually know whether Parnia gave an actual interview or SC Am took some of their past comments or “comments for press” released as a general idea for any news about the new article.
I don’t think the sc am article brings anything new here. Parnia has recent interviews (and even some parts of the aware 2 discussion) were he makes dualistic comments on consciousness. As a matter of fact, it may be just my impression, but he seems to speak more freely when in video interviews, or the Lucid dying live conference last year…maybe the Lucid dying documentary and book are interesting after all….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mery, I think you are right. Looking at the article again, they have mixed a few quotes from him with their own musings. However, as you point out, there are a lot of inconsistencies.
LikeLike
This video was posted 9 months ago or so, after first results on the AW2
Ben, it is the same comments all over again, but the context is different (dualistic video here). I don’t think Parnia gave any real interview to Sc Amer…
LikeLike
Seems to me he is drawing a line under this research perhaps he is moving on to other things. Bit strange that he is bothering to Co author the new book which was mentioned though, as it seems to me he is going down the materialist path so it would be pointless, unless of course he attempts to explain away NDEs.
LikeLike
“The traditional thinking among doctors is that the brain, once deprived of oxygen for five to 10 minutes, dies,” he says. “We were able to show that the brain is quite robust in terms of its ability to resist oxygen deprivation for prolonged periods of time, which opens up new pathways for finding treatments for brain damage in the future.”
The above paragraph from Scientific American borders on the laughable…. How the hell can Parnia claim that if CPR took no more than five (i.e. less than 10) minutes after the instant of cardiac arrest to begin? How the hell can he claim that they were deprived of oxygen if CPR involves mechanical ventilation of the patient….These are claims to me without any medical foundation, hollow claims, to say the least.
LikeLike
“you couldn’t function with access to your whole brain’s activity being in the realm of consciousness ”
This line is also from the article in SA. This could be viewed very much in a filter theory understanding.
Similar the line
“Parts that are normally dormant become active, and the dying person gains access to their entire consciousness”
Coukd mean different things from one’s perspective. If one is a materlist the term consciousness means the brain. If one is dualist or idealist this means the mind as a serperate entire pertaining to a filter theory.
And ultimately in the aware 2 study itself, in the paper two things stand out. One is that no ndes or reds were reported with eggs.
And secondly that the paper states that the possibly of alternatives to the ephiphemon (definitely spelt wrong there) should be considered.
This is very much so a challenge to the paradigm that is the current base.
And as Mery linked there with the video from last November the terms innthe SA article remain consistent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, you are right and I over reacted to the article. I have toned it down!
LikeLike
I agree. This is the problem I have with many near death researchers and the IANDS community. They appear to leap beyond what is observed or presented and come up with extraordinary ideas about the nature of consciousness or what NDE/OBE mean
LikeLike
Hi Dave. My apologies for going off topic, but I thought I’d share this with you. This was posted by the Parnia Lab at NYU YouTube account about 7 hours ago. Could this be the true feelings of our friend Dr. Parnia?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, and very relevant…another post coming as this shows with absolute certainty where he is going with this. Thank you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Was this authorised by Parnia himself, if so it shows what he really thinks.
LikeLike
Was this authorised by Parnia himself if so it seems to show his real thoughts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, and I have tempered the tone of my comments.
LikeLike
I would have to agree with Ben. We should not make excuses anymore or give Parnia such leeway with the benefit of the doubt as we have collectively been doing and instead blaming the media or NY Langone or Parnia Lab for misrepresnting. This all falls on Parnia from now on.
He is not showing moral integrity by trying to appease the scientific materialists at the expense of the truth.
He is not to be considered in the same breath as esteemed current day NDE scholars and researchers such as Fenwick, Greyson, Sartori, von Lommel, Long, and others.
LikeLike
Ok Ben from your most recent comments, and the edit you have now done to the blog post (as I was going by your lead largely), I will have to give Parnia some leeway – I was a bit harsh in my opinion on him now seeing that Parnia was not responsible as to what was attributed to him for how the article in question came across.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, my fault, I got it wrong. It was late in the evening, and I had just come back from a work dinner I had been attending out here in Barcelona. Sorry for misleading you, and if anyone from the Parnia lab read it, my apologies to them also.
I am starting to perhaps get a handle on why he is doing this. A preemptive strike. I allude to that in the next post, and will create a final post at the weekend summarising where we are, and what I think is going on.
LikeLike
No worries Ben…I jumped the gun too. But its not entirely our fault as Parnia is not always forthright and consistent with us – in videos he conveys dualism while in the written form, he has more of a materialism slant. Academia really only goes to the written works and also only references them – so I guess he thinks he keeps the materialists on side this way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It also didn’t help that I had been on a rather boozy work dinner when I wrote the post…never again!
LikeLike
Pingback: A Cunning Plan? | AwareofAware