Sam Parnia’s position in his own words:
Thank you Thomas for finding this. It is well worth a listen for all those who follow this blog and the AWARE studies. All the key positions are covered in the interview, and most importantly Parnia puts himself in the camp of scientists who believe that the brain hosts consciousness rather produces consciousness. Here is the link where you can find the 25 min audio clip:
In general it was a really good interview. He comes across as extremely rational, thoughtful and balanced. I really liked his in depth explanation of the issues around medium term cellular viability, reperfusion injury and how the latter might be prevented. This is a big deal in the CPR world.
However, there are some positions he takes that I just cannot agree with, and that is not because I am experiencing cognitive dissonance (his explanation for people being unable to understand the idea of dualism when their minds are grounded in materialism). For me it is lack of evidence, or even evidence to the contrary that causes me to disagree with him on a few points, but also agree on others:
On prevalence of NDEs:
On remembering NDEs: he uses a “lunch” analogy and everyone remembers that they had lunch a week ago but don’t always remember what they had. Might be a useful analogy, but in his case not helpful to his position that most people have NDEs but can’t remember them. This analogy would suggest that if you had an NDE, you might not remember the details (although people tend to) but you would remember that you had an NDE. I use this in my book when discussing the issue of only 10% of elderly adults having recall.
On prevalence of lucid experiences:
He also says that he has evidence which suggests that many, if not all, are having lucid experiences during CPR. Unless he has something that he hasn’t presented, he does not have evidence to suggest this at all. He just has EEG signals not associated with anything other than performing CPR. Specifically he says:
“Conclusively, 40% of EEG changed to near normal up to 1 hour after”.
Firstly, 40% is not most people, but even the 40% is a bit of a stretch. This is taken directly from the AWARE II paper:
Importantly, near-normal/physiological EEG consistent with consciousness also emerged: delta, theta activity in 22% and 12% respectively (up to CPR 60 minutes), alpha 6% of data/images (up to CPR 35 minutes) and beta 1% (Fig. 2B).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2023.109903
If you add them all up they come to 40%, but delta and theta are associated with deep (dreamless) sleep or drowsiness, only alpha and beta are regarded as being associated with being awake or conscious, so at a push you might be able to say that only 7% had EEG that might be indicative of consciousness. (Mery, or Tim…pretty please…comment here). I am not an expert on EEG, but that is my understanding using this article as a source.
Link to an article on EEG and consciousness
I get why Sam is doing this, but I am not completely certain about it being 100% accurate. He is implying that nearly everyone has conscious activity during CPR. That is, putting it as politely as I can and given the data from his paper, not aligned with the facts.
RED vs NDE:
He says this distinction is important to differentiate experiences. Won’t go there, but I still prefer NDE.
On the process of dying
He describes it in terms of a process, a grey area, rather than binary dead vs alive. In physiological terms, I would agree…the grey area is between the definition of medical death (absence of vitals signs) and irreversible death (the legal definition and the source of a rather horrid falling out with Tim). Given the enduring viability of brain cells, the body is not permanently dead, but in terms of consciousness, it may be different, and that is where his hypothesis about disinhibition is interesting.
On his disinhibition discussions around 22:20
He says they have uncovered the mechanism that explains what may be going. Flatlining of the brain removes braking systems, people then get access to dormant parts of their brain and are able to access new dimensions of reality. This is a real experience that emerges with death.
If your brain has stopped working, how can you access dormant parts of it? Despite the wobbly rationale deployed, I like the disinhibition idea, and that the tethering normally holding the consciousness to the brain, is being released, but I think he needs to be lighter on the details as he has no real evidence for anything more than something may be going on. However, he has to build a bridge for materialists to walk over, and using the terms he does may achieve this.
Bad NDEs
He dismisses horrible NDEs as not being NDEs again, and attributes them to waking up in the ICU. This is contrary to the evidence provided in papers on negative NDEs. Been discussed before, so won’t go there again.
Overall a really good interview, that puts beyond any doubt his position on dualism, but I wish he would stick to what the evidence specifically allows for, rather than speculating way beyond those boundaries. That would be boring though and not be good entertainment, or newsworthy.
AwareofAware 
You’re most welcome, Dave. And a great breakdown of the interview! As mentioned on my last comment, he still engages in that dubious language when discussing NDEs. However, I’m a bit less disturbed by it since he clarified his position of consciousness.
On a minor note, I’ve been considering the possibility that negative NDEs may be produced while consciousness is still bundled with the brain and the body is in distress, whether it be because of a foggy wakeup from anesthetics in the ICU or serious physical afflictions. I guess it would be analogous to having hideous nightmares that are triggered by fever and infirmity. This is just a humble hypothesis, of course, and not meant to nullify or even compete with more compelling and substantiated explanations.
LikeLike
Dave? 🙂
LikeLike
Ben, my apologies. Not to make excuses for my clumsiness, but the last comments I posted were during moments where I was struggling to keep my eyes opened. It was just after work. Sorry.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No worries, my real is name is actually Orson…just to complicate things.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I knew your name was Orson since I own your book, but out of respect I went with the name associated with your posts. If this embarrassing gaffe on my part has muddied the comment section of this post with superfluous and irrelevant comments, please feel free to delete anything attributed to me. No hard feelings. Again, my apologies.
LikeLike
Honestly, no worries at all. Thanks for buying book 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
i’ve just listened to the latest interview of (Sam Parnia ) on the guardian just posted today in my country time, he says what you haves just listed and talked about but i seem to kinda found the smoking gun on his position, in the very last minutes of the interview he says theres no up to date scientific explanation on how the brain produces the mind nor any evidence of it being caused by it, but it seems their research seems to support the idea and theory that the brain is not annihilated by the death of the brain and that it is not produced by the brain and also indirectly supports the idea that the mind modulates the brain as-well.
im new to these website so yeah but wanted to share 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Dylan, I will watch. Welcome.
LikeLike
https://www.theguardian.com/science/audio/2023/oct/31/what-could-near-death-experiences-teach-us-about-life-death-and-consciousness-podcast
heres the link where i watched the interview.
LikeLike
Good listen Dylan
LikeLike
“…clarified his position on consciousness.”
LikeLike
nice interview, but I wonder, does Dr. Parmia proclaim himself a dualist because he has evidence, results that suggest so, or is his “just” a hope?
LikeLike
I think hes dualist at heart
LikeLike
Definitely.
LikeLike
Thanks Ben for analyzing the interview. It’s comforting to read that Sam put’s himself in the camp scientists who have the hypothosis that the brain hosts consciousness rather produces consciousness.
But a thing you wrote in your post triggered me. The fact that only 10% of elderly adults having recall a NDE. Pim van Lommel also touched this subject in his book. What do you think that is the cause that the older a person is the lower the chance is that he or she remembers/experience an NDE? And do you think their might be a relation in cause and mechanism with end of life dreams?
LikeLiked by 1 person
In my book I go into this topic in great detail. Age related memory decline cannot by itself account for the discrepancy between incidence of childhood NDE after ROS vs adult incidence. Parnia made the point recently that the data regarding childhood NDEs is not accurate…well he needs to stump up with data that proves this. If the incidence across all age groups was similar, then I would agree with his assertion that is related to drugs used or trauma to the brain affecting ability to recall, but currently it is not. In fact in my book I point to data that suggests that there is gradual slope as age progresses.
His point about the lunch applies in this case, and I make it in my book. In one analysis that I cite, that in age adjusted cognitively normal patients, while the elderly were less likely to recall specifics of an event (about 20-30% less likely), they were equally able to recall that the event occurred. An NDE is such a remarkable event, it is much more likely to be remembered for having happened than just eating lunch.
LikeLike
Well srated Ben
LikeLike
Hi Ben,
It was a nice and complete interview! These kind of interviews are much better than press written texts…
He provides a lot of information about his studies and his thoughts, and the more interesting thing is, as you mentioned, that for the first time he has positioned himself. Although I am afraid his position is not based on new unreleased data of his own.
I believe that his mentioning 40% of patients presented normal EEG etc was just an effort to generalise his results, and of course is not totally accurate based on his findings. But he didn’t have time to go into details on that part. And agree, theta and delta are not representative of normal consciousness. These slow waves are usually related to deep sleep, drousiness, low consciousness levels, and they are even normally observed in elderly people in normal EEG. They shouldn’t account for normal or heightened consciousness. However, they shouldn’t be considered pathological either, and maybe, if we are playing around with language, that’s what he meant? As opposed to seizure like activity for ex. (Which is not normal).
What I found a bit annoying is the effort he is trying to do explaining his theory of braking system etc. He started mixing, imho, consciousness, the self, people, “we”, and got me more confused. “People” having access to greater consciousness, other dimensions of reality, our consciousness is not anihilated (is people here equal to consciousness? Is the self equal to consciousness? Etc). It got me confused as to how his own explanation also supports his duality concept….I think he has no idea either, but press and jorunals and people are asking for an explanation, for a piece of his mind here, and he, as you very well stated, shouldn’t go too deep on details…cause even him can’t really explain it…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for all these updates, Ben. I’ve been following the posts. I just wish there was concrete evidence at this point, but realize we need to have patience.
I also like the disinhibition theory but agree it is just a theory at this point.
Will be interesting to see what the COOL studies show.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Anna,
Good to hear from, and that you are still following this blog. I still think about your encouragement for my novel, and if I get time I will work on it again.
LikeLike
Thanks Ben! I’m so glad you are thinking of continuing your novel. The portion you posted was super interesting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love that he’s *finally* beginning to be a bit more explicit about his personal position, alongside evidence that he believes supports that opinion.
My only two qualms with this interview are that, a few times now, he has said that REDs are a unique “inner” experience. Inner, to me, suggests that it’s happening inside the person – which, obliviously, may allow materialists to claim it’s solely a biological process. Moreover, I wonder why he keeps saying “inner” experiences when we have thousands of cases of veridical OBEs (I guess EVAs now) that show consciousness is interacting with/observing the external world in a very real, verifiable way. That fact, to me, tells us that the experience is not entirely “inner”.
Secondly, he says in the part about his personal opinion that he believes that we can see biomarkers of consciousness show up in brain studies, but that doesn’t mean the brain causes consciousness. But then, in the part where he is explaining his disinhibition theory, he says that the flatlining of the brain allows us to access all dormant parts of our brain. It’s like in some sentences, he says ‘consciousness’, and in other sentences, he says ‘brain’. If his whole point is that these two are not the same – why is he flip-flopping their usage and making it confusing still?
LikeLiked by 1 person
So he says his hypothesis is that when blood and oxygen stop flowing to the brain this removes the brain “braking system” which allows a person access to dormant parts of the brain which IN TURN gives that person access to new dimensions of reality.
I had to listen to and read his hypothesis a few times but as I understand it what he is saying is that the brains braking system is the “filter” and when it’s off the dormant parts of the brain are no longer filtering. Basically these dormant parts of the brain are able to access new dimensions of reality.
It’s an attempt to understand the Cartesian dualism as you had written about in your last post.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Its’ a dip into the spiritual by Sam and taken to the limit when our brain is totally gone, something else is accessing these “new dimensions of reality”. No brain and like, we’re off elsewhere. I can’t see it otherwise than Sam is not on the edge of the fence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed. The brain is flatlining, it is doing nothing.
LikeLike
Maranda, I couldn’t remember are you involved with anthropology? It’s just I’ve read a little of the anthropologist Edith Turner who said her colleagues try to fit everything into a positivist framework when looking at indigenous practices (shamanism etc.) whereas she’s come across events “in the field” where she’s got in there with the practitioners that have convinced her of the reality of the spirit world. So a leap has to be made. Her The Reality of Spirits covers this.
LikeLike
oops, philosophy. apols.
LikeLike
Miranda – no one really knows him included. In fact, Parnia on multiple occasions explicitly expressed opinion that conciseness is much more than the brain. It doesn’t assume any particular worldview because no one knows mechanisms of it. Whether it is caused by brain or hosted by brain – this is open question and will stay like that until some breakthrough discovery of those mechanisms will take place. People hear what they want to hear but he is clear as it only possible. There is no certain evidence of one way or another, thinking that NDE is a “door” to final conclusion on the topic is a bit naive and I am personally glad Parnia as a scientist much bigger than that – he talks a lot and even more about implications to current medical and treatment views vs theological or worldview – this is a hallmark of true science, in a sense he doesn’t care and follow the evidence… isn’t it great?
Biological markers of consciousness could just be reflecting that touch between “matter” of consciousness and brain. But again and again unless we know the mechanisms it is just markers. We don’t know if those are true indication of NDE (very realistic scenario as what else it can be ?) or why then in other cases NDE may be present but brain activity is undetected, more questions than answers here.
We don’t know what life is, what mind is, what matter is – and in that sense our definitions (like “afterlife”) are far off and childish. Skepticism in original sense of this term (observing without making final conclusion) is valuable and priceless position.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anyone know when they’re going to release Rethinking death and when Dr. Parnia book will be released
LikeLike
I saw the new documentary After Death. I enjoyed it. However, it was more religious based than scientific.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with OR comment, I don’t think Parnia even knows what is exactly happening, and tries his best to give an explanation, but he is actually mixing terms and to me his explanation is more confusing than anything…I think in the video in the Parnia Lab channel in You Tube the use of terms was more simple and easier to understand…(Ben provided the link 2 posts back).
I still have some doubts about the spikes of “near normal” and “normal” activity meaning RED. Cause never in previous studies in dying rats, humans, psychedelics…normal activity was hypothetically linked to these experiences. Normal is normal. And REDs are not a normal state of consciousness. If you have normal activity, well, you would think of normal processing, and normal thoughts.
Zemmar dying patient presented decreased alpha and beta, so did many other cases, only “relatively” higher gamma (was already discussed in other posts). It doesn’t really match other findings, but Parnia built a theory nonetheless. And I believe he did his best cause he has no idea, and wants to find meaning in his results…and of course, it is interesting that even after analising his own results he still positions himself in the dualist part of the fence.
LikeLike
Hi Ben-
Have you listened to this Dr. Parnia interview? It’s from SkeptiKo and he’s pushed on some good questions. The interview was not an adversarial exchange, but it does get contentious at times when Dr. Parnia is confronted with some of his contradictory comments and is stressed to make clarifications.
Ironically, this interview might be considered a contradiction of previous interviews/ comments.
https://skeptiko.com/sam-parnia-claims-near-death-experience-probably-an-illusion/
LikeLike
How many times has Parnia previously stated that NDEs/ REDs are not an illusion?
LikeLike
Also, I’ve been trying to ascertain the exact date of this interview and so far I’ve had no luck. It just says October 14th. In Dr. Parnia’s defense, it’s possible that this interview may be from earlier times.
LikeLike
Ive listened to that interview with Sam on Skeptiko and it was from a long time ago.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Ben, this is a much older interview. It becomes apparent seconds into it. Dr. Parnia is introduced as a “fellow in pulmonary care at Cornell University” when he’s presently an associate professor of medicine at NYU Langone Medical Center. Although dated, this interview is characterized by a more aggressive insistence that he clarify comments that he previously made that seem contradictory. Contemporary interviews are so wishy-washy.
LikeLike
https://www.theguardian.com/science/audio/2023/oct/31/what-could-near-death-experiences-teach-us-about-life-death-and-consciousness-podcast
LikeLiked by 1 person