Marshalling “The Spirit” for the Martial study
Thanks Paul for letting me know about this IANDS podcast with Charlotte Martial, the consciousness researcher from Liège University in Belgium (Liège is a top European university – when I was doing my Ph.D. I collaborated with them on anti-viral projects)
Firstly, it is not a great interview as the interviewer doesn’t seem to understand her position, or properly listen to her. She is a physicalist, and nothing that she has seen in her research has changed that position, so when he asks her at the end about the shift in understanding to a post materialistic world, he is barking up the wrong tree! As a result he doesn’t really challenge or probe her position, which is disappointing. Anyway, key relevant points:
She refers to her publication back in May last year that we discussed previously that proposes a model explaining NDEs physiologically. She makes the same fundamental mistake as Borjigin from Michigan by stating that the observed EEG activity is occurring during Cardiac arrest (CA). It is not. The EEG and neurotransmitter data she is referring to in humans is all before CA in patients who were in comas and whose EEG were isoelectric by the time they entered full CA. In rats there was EEG for maybe 20-30 seconds post CA. After that, nothing. In none of these studies was any patient recollections collected, so everything is speculative at best, but in reality it is worse than that.
There is no brain activity during CA, and therefore no observations can be made or new memories can be formed in the brain. Her hypothesis is that the NDE memories are created during this period (prior to CA) when the brain becomes hyperactive while starved of oxygen, but that theory has been debunked over and over again, not least in instances of sudden CA where there was no period of oxygen deprivation in the brain prior to CA. I have always said that the activity they have observed when patients or rats were basically suffocated, is the brain screaming at every system in the body to get oxygen moving around, but these are very different circumstances to the vast majority of NDEs that follow a different path, usually involving sudden death and CA, followed by immediate loss of consciousness. This is why more and more I am of the view that Sam Parnia’s acronym – REDs – recalled experiences of death, rather than Near Death, are superior when it comes to discussing these phenomenon in a research context.
They also talked about her ongoing AWARE-like study and why nobody has seen the hidden targets (they ignored the HCP validated OBE in AWARE I or the fact that so few even survived to be interviewed). Her explanation is that is scientifically impossible to observe things outside of ourselves while unconscious, so they will never see a hidden target. She said that the scientific explanation for OBEs is that the brain is conflating observations made before becoming unconscious with false memories of events – they are overlaying what they remembered about the environment prior to CA with new memories that didn’t happen. Of course when you look at some of the OBEs reported over the years, particularly those in the Titus Rivas book, the Self Does Not Die, this explanation falls apart.
Her AWARE-like study is ongoing, but she doesn’t expect there to be a hit for this reason. She is open, but her fundamental baseline position is that there is no afterlife…let’s see if we can change that!
CALL TO ACTION – for those of you who believe in the afterlife and God I am going to ask you to do something unsual…I am asking you to pray. If you are Christian, then pray specifically to Jesus, but if you have a general belief, then pray to God/the great spirit/the being of light etc. This is really important. I think that while Charlotte Marshall is obviously a materialist, I also think she is open to new evidence, but the only evidence that would challenge her worldview would be scientifically validated empirical evidence. It is a shame that she does not regard the testimonies of hundreds of patients and attending HCPs of observations of events/objects that could only be observed if the person’s consciousness had actually left the body as valid empirical evidence, but she is a scientist who seems only to regard scientifically produced evidence as valid. To this end she has created an experiment similar to the AWARE study (but really with the objective to disprove OBEs), and the only way that her worldview would shift is if there is a hit in her study. I say it is set up to disprove NDEs being real because she is only intending to recruit 100 patients, and as we know from previous studies, this is nowhere near enough. However, I mention in my book that it would delicious irony if the study set up by a sceptic to disprove NDEs would be the one that actually had a hit. Well let’s pray for it. I want you to pray the following, and try to remember to do it frequently:
“Dear God/Jesus/etc, I know you are real, I know that my soul will survive death, but so many people don’t and that this is a bad thing for them and for the world as their thinking is only focused on the material and passing. At the moment there is no scientifically validated evidence supporting the understanding that the consciousness can survive death, and that without such evidence it is hard to convince a materialistic world this may be true, therefore please allow at least one person in Charlotte Martial’s study, who has a full CA with no ECG and EEG, to observe the hidden target (s)and recall it accurately, and for this person’s testimony to be validated and presented publicly by Marshall.”
Simple. I believe in the power of prayer, and I believe that while it is vital that free choice is maintained, at the moment the lack of a scientifically validated OBE presents a very real barrier for some who might otherwise be inclined to believe. Hardcore sceptics will still dismiss it, but for those who have “eyes to see and ears to hear” it may be enough to spark their wider curiosity.
“God, please throw us a bone!”
Please visit my book site to find out more about my fiction and non-fiction books:
AwareofAware 
I’m not sure Scfi. I will say this though. Either you are awake or asleep. I don’t think it explains consciousness. Maybe I’m wrong and repect your question. Consciousness exists regardless of sleep or being awake. The secret is where does it exist? Do we die and go into permanent sleep?
I think science is now giving us answers. I’m still on the fence but if I had to bet, I think our consciousness still continues. I would go for it entering the universe. Check out Sir Roger Penrose. He’s a very clever man.
Paul
LikeLike
Paul
I actually said “…underpins all Experience” (but ‘existence’ isn’t that far away) 🙂
Most people feel they are separate isolated individuals, walking around in a separate isolated world, with other separate isolated individuals.
Any words of mine which people read, will be understood from that perspective.
How do I take them from where they are, to where I am? So that we can communicate accurately, so they don’t misinterpret the meaning of my words?
It took me several anomalous experiences, 7 years of personal development, and 19 years of open minded research to get to to the perspective I have now.
For example, most people don’t know, or perhaps accept, that colour cannot be a property of any separate external world.
And comments like this from Maldacena are not, and cannot be understood with full significance:
https://x.com/maxxbone/status/2024034864622698668?s=20
LikeLiked by 2 people
On the 26 Feb BBC Radio 4 talked about a molecular scientist Professor Michael Wooldridge claiming they’d found a self-replicating molecule. What is the truth about this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi, the BBC link has expired (or I can’t access it because I am outside the UK). I read another interview about the research that I think this was referring to. Very much a case of it “sort of replicates itself”, and that this was after synthesising trillions of molecules in controlled conditions in a lab. It was 45 nucleotides long which has a 45 to the power of 4 chance of appearing if conditions allowed (which they wouldn’t). This gives you an idea of the statistical problems.
Then there are the chemical problems of instability of RNA, and availability of building blocks and suitable solvents etc. Early earth was not a clean lab with pure raw materials.
The first conceptual problem with a self replicating molecule is that there would be an active portion of the molecule which does the replicating, lets call this the mouth of the head of a snake, and the rest of the molecule that it replicates…the tail. The problem: the mouth cannot eat itself, i.e. the part of the molecule that replicates the rest of the molecule cannot replicate itself, so these molecules are only ever able to replicate a portion of the molecule.
The second conceptual problem is that evolution would require this molecule to just improve its ability to self replicate, and that the additional bits of molecule or additional molecules that would be required to create other cellular functions would affect the ability of the original molecule to self-replicate.
The third conceptual problem is how you transition from an RNA-based system to a DNA-based system.
The fourth and biggest conceptual problem is how you go from a nucleoside based system, wherein the system has evolved around structural motifs that determine function, to a nucleic acid code for an amino acid based protein system which we have now. The DNA code is both arbitrary and abstract – the code be easily reassigned as there is no structural relationship between the codons of the code and the amino acids, and the code itself creates molecules with functions that bare absolutely no relation to the structure or functions of the coding molecules.
There are many other problems too.
I discuss most of this in detail in my book: DNA: The Elephant in The Lab, available on Amazon.
The RNA world is a red herring, but it is all they have so they won’t let it go.
LikeLike
Hello everyone. Orson, would you happen to know if Sam Parnia ever discussed what would be considered “scientific” evidence regarding the AWARE studies? For example, if a person correctly described the target, would that be accepted by the scientific community as proof that it wasn’t seen conventionally and therefore indicates that consciousness can continue even with a dead brain? Of course, this evidence would be combined with thousands of reports from reliable people. I ask this because I saw an old lecture of his where he says that something would only be considered evidence if hundreds of patients reported seeing the target, because if it was only one or two, it could be because curious people climbed up to the shelves and observed the targets. What do you think about this? Did he change his opinion after Parnia saw that it’s extremely difficult to recruit patients under these conditions? If that patient from AWARE 1, who observed a doctor he didn’t know working on him, had seen the target (I know it would be impossible because there weren’t even targets in that room), would that be considered strong evidence by the scientific community?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Goosd question exactlygeneralf3806c316f. I look forward to youjr relply Orson. Rgds Paul.
LikeLike
Well I’m not Orson but in my opinion I would consider repeated observations of targets to be pretty strong proof that the patients really were OOB (as opposed to just hallucinating). If one or two patients saw targets that could be dismissed in my opinion. The more hits you have under controlled conditions the harder it is to explain away using conventional explanations. That goes back to what I said in an earlier comment about hypothesis testing. As far as what number of hits you would need to convince people I think really comes down to the individual. Everyone has a different threshold.
LikeLike
Strcitly speaking scientific evidence is generally that collected using the scientific method which is: generate hypothesis > create experiment to test hypothesis > if the results are positive that supports the understanding that the hypothesis is true (but there could still be other explanations, which is why it takes years of evidence before an hypothesis is PROVEN).
In this instance the experiment involved observing specific hidden targets, therefore the OBEs were not SCIENTIFICALLY proven. However the hypothesis was not proven false either. One hit of seeing the target would provide scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis as being true, but few would say it was proven…you would need many such hits.
Now I believe the Belgium group headed up by Marshall are doing the same experiment but generating a different hypothesis. They will say that NDEs are not real and they will say that they have scientific proof if no one sees a target yet claims to have an NDE.
LikeLike
I understand. But in that case, how can we be so sure that the phenomenon is real CURRENTLY? I think that if we’re basing ourselves on the scientific method, the question is still open. Sam Parnia says we would need several correct predictions to confirm this hypothesis; you sometimes comment on this blog that we would need one to make the switch. But what seems to be the case is that Parnia, you, and several others, perhaps including myself, have a non-materialistic position, regardless of the results not yet having appeared. Aren’t we wrong to believe this prematurely? What would lead scientists to believe that these experiences people have are real, even without having the data yet?
LikeLike
exactlygeneral,
You’re right to question the validity of OBEs. We simply don’t know yet what they are right now.
LikeLike
I’ve been giving this a fair bit of thought lately and when it comes to NDEs, Paradoxical lucidity and dying. We may never find proof in our lifetime. HOWEVER, there is a really good chance we live to see other strong evidence come out. The cases of OBEs in the literature so far offer strong evidence for consciousness continuing and support Sam Parnia’s theory of the brain acting as a filter. Furthermore, TL and Paradoxical lucidity offer more potential evidence for his theory. Would it prove the theory true, no. But offers strong support. Proof is more in the realm of mathematics since nothing can be known with 100 % certainty. We can however make reasonable conclusions on the available data and go with what the evidence suggests. And the more evidence that comes out the better off our conclusion can be. Doesn’t matter if they find a hit or not, what matters is the magnitude of the evidence as a whole and if they find positive evidence at all, which Sam and his team have. We have to have the mindset of evidence, not proof. In order to run we first learn to crawl, then walk. When it comes to proving a theory we need a hypothesis and then experiment ,then evidence to get to proof. My point is don’t focus on trying to beat the skeptics or prove skeptics wrong, come to your own conclusion on what we have so far and keep looking for more. Skeptics may never be convinced but the ones who are truly open minded and willing to ask questions can find potential answers. Science has yet to answer the big fundamental questions of consciousness, nature of matter, the big bang, and origin of life. There is so much we don’t know despite the some saying we have an almost complete theory of everything. Just keep asking questions and stay curious! 😊
LikeLiked by 3 people
I agree. You will never convince the skeptics.
LikeLike
Clayton, I discuss the topic of the nature and quality of evidence in both of my NDE books, available at orsonw.com. We have to concede that we do not have scientific proof to support our hypothesis that the consciousness survives death, as quite frankly we do not, and even with a number of hits this is still not “proof” per se. Science is always unfinished. It is rarely “settled”. Hypotheses are rarely ever proven (although they can be true) even with overwhelming evidence since it is always possible that an as yet unknown hypothesis may be generated that also fits the evidence. You can have two hypothesis that are true with current evidence and provide potentially different explanations for the same observation meaning new experiments are needed to differentiate which is most true. Think of our understanding of the sun and the earth. Before telescopes allowed Copernicus and Galileo to show that the earth rotated around the sun, with the evidence available to man it could have bene true that the sun rotated around the earth (even if it was eventually proven false). That is the nature of the scientific process.
However, there is the expression “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. This is where Titus Rivas’ book and all the other verified OBEs come into play. I believe that we have overwhelming EMPIRICAL evidence that the consciousness can survive death, and that in a world of reason where all good quality evidence, not just scientific evidence, must be weighed, then I am of the strong view that out hypothesis has proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Unfortunately (in this case) scientists are now the establishment gatekeepers of what is accepted human understanding so until they have enough scientific evidence, they will not [publicly] accept this hypothesis to be true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Orson.. Maybe I”m playing Devil’s Advocat a little here.
Plz point us all in the right direction for this one, There’s a challenge for you;-)
Paul
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Paul,
Not sure what you mean..please explain further 🙂
LikeLike
Sure Orson. I need sleep right now (12 pm uk time) but i’m answer tomorrow when I’m alert. Rest assured, and enjoy your day. Paul”¬
LikeLike
In all honesty I have not yet read your books yet, but I I intend to! And I agree with your point on Titus Rivas and the Self Does Not Die containing really compelling cases of OBEs and Peak in Darien cases. I do find some statements from skeptics such as Charlotte Marshall concerning, especially in regards to the interview posted above of their being no scientifically solid cases of OBEs when there are multiple corroborated and verified cases by HCP and in some instances Medical notes as well. Between the OBE cases, Prospective studies/ Retrospective studies, Paradoxical lucidity/ Terminal lucidity and other findings, one can at the very least may a solid compelling argument for consciousness after death. I’m also curious have you ever thought of doing an interview or hosting an interview with NDE researchers? I think you would be fantastic at hosting and provide very fresh new perspectives on the literature of NDEs.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good post, Clayton. Paulie.
LikeLike
I also really hope that there are more studies on after effects of NDEs in the near future as I think it is not studied or talked about enough. There is some research and findings on it from Pim van Lommel and other researchers but I would love to see if there are potential electromagnetic effects or other phenomenon that are underreported. Could further help understand and learn about NDEs as a whole.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I also really hope that there are more studies on after effects of NDEs in the near future as I think it is not studied or talked about enough.
Yes, I agree. It was Raymond Moody who kicked started ths one. I think ir was in the 60’s. In scienific terms, it’s a very short period indeed.
Let’s see where it all leads! I could put forward a very strong arguement for concisness existing outside of the brain. I could also argue against it. That’s a lawyer for you!
Have a great weekend. Paul
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s a relatively newly reported OBE case.
TLDR; patient recalled a fight between medical staff and was able to describe the OR and tools used.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41665893/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Pablo, that is an excellent, and obviously very recent example of an OBE verified by medical staff. The details she recalled would have been completely impossible to have observed and recalled given her state.
It is not absolutely clear whether the OBE was the aspect that was distressing, or the subsequent subjective aspects that she may have experienced but are barely alluded to in passing. My sense from the article is that it was the latter and that she possibly experienced a hell-like/negative NDE, but the details of this were excluded from the journal article.
What is important and encouraging is that she drew positive meaning from it and that her previous suicidal leanings were resolved. Perhaps she got a glimpse of what might happen if she followed that path to its conclusion.
When I was young man, before I became a Christian, I had strong suicidal thoughts. These were forever banished from me when I surrendered to Christ, but that process required more than just a few words…
LikeLike
Thanks
LikeLike