New Kid On The NDE Block
(If Ms Martial sees this picture, I hope she takes it in the spirit of fun it is intended…maybe she was a fan of these blokes if she is old enough to remember them…I was not).
I started this blog primarily to discuss clinical research into NDEs. Sam Parnia’s AWARE studies have formed the backbone of such research over the past 2 decades, but there is a new kid on the block and her name is Charlotte Martial (thanks Z for the heads-up). Below is a link the latest interview with her:
https://nautil.us/the-new-science-of-the-near-death-experience-1279957
Martial approaches the subject from a different angle to Parnia, specifically she is clearly a physicalist and unfortunately, I believe this prejudices her work. Parnia, while apparently a dualist, at least attempted to maintain some impartiality and retain an open mind as to what was causing NDEs…he allows for a physiological explanation while stating that the evidence defies this. Martial does not allow for non-physiological causes at all. This necessarily means that all of her discussions and conclusions will be framed by this thinking, forcing her to interpret the data in one way only, even if logic dictates otherwise. It is also possible that it may also influence her presentation of the actual data too. This is something that we observed in extremis with Jimo Borjigin who went beyond just allowing bias to enter discussion, to the point where she completely “misrepresented” her data to create an entirely false conclusion (which was lapped up by the media)…specifically she claimed that there was an increase in brain activity DURING cardiac arrest in coma patients when her own raw data clearly showed that it happened PRIOR to Cardiac arrest, and that by the time the heart had stopped beating all notable EEG activity had ceased. On this point, Martial sets out her stand on more solid ground from the start.
Moreover, unlike Borjigin who never actually researched NDEs, but rather looked at neurological output around the time of death in rats and coma patients, Martial has been running a study similar to the AWARE studies, interviewing patients after resuscitation and it seems that she has now garnered enough data to publish.
From the interview this is a summary of the data she has:
We tracked 180 patients, and of those, 12 had near-death experiences. Our preliminary results suggest that the brains of patients who had near-death experiences showed greater complexity than those who did not.
and
what we observed is that as soon as several days after the acute severe crisis, we can see memory change in terms of content of the experience, which challenged what was found in the retrospective literature.
Some features appeared, and some others disappeared in their memories. For instance, you can have someone who doesn’t report an out-of-body experience upon awakening, however, two months later, the person does report it.
By now readers of this blog will be familiar with the idea of headline hype. What I mean by that is that the headlines about a study, even sometimes the title, over-egg the actual findings that can be drawn from the data. Sometimes there is [innocent] conflation of data, such as in Parnia’s recent AWARE study in which he seemed to merge data from his prospective observational clinical study with retrospective reports from his database, and from this you get headlines that are spuriously related to the data. In the case of Borjigin, it goes way beyond that. Headlines and statements in the press are designed to draw attention, and in this case in the first paragraph we are obviously drawn to the words:
Our preliminary results suggest that the brains of patients who had near-death experiences showed greater complexity than those who did not.
Given the fact that she says this is the first time that EEG data has been collected in patients who have had NDEs, the implication is that she has managed to link EEG output associated with high level brain activity with actual NDE reports. If this is true, then this is definitely a step beyond what was achieved in AWARE II which also collected EEG data in patients undergoing CPR. In that study there was high level brain activity in some patients, but none who later reported an NDE. BUT while the wording of her statement seems to imply that Martial has this kind of data, will the reality survive rigorous scrutiny? Key questions to consider when she publishes her data:
- Was this EEG activity before, during CA, or after resuscitation? She says patients were unresponsive, does that mean that they had no vitals (no heartbeat), or were they just unconscious but with a heartbeat.
- If the EEG activity was during CA…i.e. they had no heartbeat, were they undergoing CPR at the time? This is what was observed in AWARE II.
- Have they been able to “timestamp” the NDE. This requires an OBE which contains an observation that can be linked to a specific timepoint, and if so, what were the physiological parameters of the patient. Were they still in CA? Were they undergoing CPR?
With regard to the report of at least one OBE, she states that the patient did not recall the OBE until an interview 2 months later. It is great that there was an OBE (if it is a proper OBE), but depending on the content, it is definitely open to accusations of corruption – not deliberate necessarily, but of the notion of false memory creation. This piece of data will be of greatest interest of all to me.
How long will we have to wait?
As is the case in research, I would expect that a publication would be preceded by an abstract at a conference, and that given her increased press activity, that is likely to be in the near future. The spring conference season runs till early July, then things tend to die over the Northern Hemisphere summer, before resuming in the Fall. Given the data she is already talking about, I suspect that she will have submitted her abstract to at least one or two conferences, and deadlines for submission are usually about 3 months prior, so we may get something as early as June, but may have to wait till the backend of the year. I put money Z will spotting it first! I will set up a PubMed and other alerts though as this certainly has the potential to be the most important study in this field since AWARE II.
I just wish she would adopt a more open-minded approach though. It would actually be in her interests if she wanted to sell books or gain publicity one day, although that is not a good reason to bias research of course. The fact is there is a massive interest in the area of spirituality among younger people today, and unless her data absolutely rules out the possibility of NDEs being the result of non-physiological origins, she should avoid presenting it in that light, as she does in this interview. She completely shuts down the possibility of non-natural causes, and I seriously doubt that the data proves this to be the case as it is extremely hard to prove a negative. It would better that she adopted the nuanced position that Parnia does…namely she could say that while this data supports the NEPTUNE model for explaining NDEs, it is still possible there are other causes, and there remain many accounts of NDEs that defy natural explanation.
Frankly no one is going to give a monkey’s about her NEPTUNE model except a few Guardian-reading cranks, since it is not really that different from previous attempts to explain NDEs as being the result of neurotransmitters. These attempts have been thoroughly debunked by the likes of Greyson, and even Parnia. The NEPTUNE model has the added weakness of being linked to the theory that NDEs are a form of Thanotosis:
“Basically, we suggest the NDE is a defense mechanism for coping with a life-threatening situation. It permits the person to disconnect from the environment, from the surroundings, to be absorbed into a more peaceful mental experience.”
The interviewer does a pretty decent job of highlighting the obvious flaws in that approach. The last thing you want is to be peaceful in a life-threatening situation…normally it is fight or flight, and while playing dead (Thanatosis) may suit some creatures in certain situations, they are not actually going through physiological death, they are just “scared to death”. The way she answers that is to claim that the psychological outcomes of NDEs are usually positive and that this may have evolutionary benefit:
for some at least, have psychological benefits. A lot of people who experience NDEs say it’s life transforming. It allows them to evolve and change their own behavior or beliefs. We suggest that the NDE arises when you don’t have any other kind of escape. So there is this fight-or-flight mechanism, but when neither fight nor flight is possible, this alternative would arise
I hope that was her just making it up on the spot as it not a very robust theory.
Ultimately her whole NEPTUNE model and accompanying theory suffers from a whopping great big flaw. Prior to the 1950s the overwhelming majority of people who had CAs stayed dead. It was only through the invention of CPR that people were able to come back (this coincided with the massive uptick in reports of NDEs). If the proximity of physiological death triggers an NDE, and prior to the 1950s physiological death meant permanent death, then whatever processes occurred immediately before CA would have no evolutionary benefit because they wouldn’t have survived. Given that her theory specifically relates to people who had CA (she states this explicitly), and given our collective knowledge of how these experiences are generally associated with CA, the whole evolutionary benefit theory collapses. Without this her NEPTUNE model is just previous [debunked] arguments about neurotransmitters.
No, it would be better for her if the data allowed for a non-natural explanation as well. The world is shifting – we are entering a post-materialistic age. I know so many scientists who accept that there is more to what we observe than just the natural explanations that science has thus provided and either believe in a “spiritual” explanation or that we are living in a simulation.
Given her answer to the final question about NDEs being real, I hold zero hope for such a Damascus moment:
When you meet entities or when you feel as though you’re out of your body, those are non-ordinary states of consciousness caused by disturbed perception. So you don’t actually meet your father in a tunnel of light, for example. But near-death experiences are real in the sense that the person who reported it did have this vivid and intense subjective experience
She is stating as fact they are physiological. She had better make sure that her data absolutely supports that position, or I suspect she may end up with egg on her face like Borjigin.
As always, if you haven’t already visit my book website (click on image below) and buy one from Amazon (or other e-retailers)
AwareofAware 
I did have a chance to interview Dr Martial regarding NDEs where I pressed her quite hard on veridical perception. Unfortunately she requested that the interview not be made public because she felt her answers were unhelpful. But essentially she believes that there is no empirical evidence for veridical perception which can be used to further non physical explanations. She did acknowledge that cases such as those in works like The Self Does Not Die etc are indeed important, but that they cannot be considered empirical. We would need experimentally controlled cases for them to qualify as data. I certainly thought it was a very useful discussion in a subject I haven’t heard her mention before specifically so it was a real shame I had to scrap it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Darren, hope all is good. The evidence from the Self Does NOt Die is not scientific evidence in that it was not generated in a pre-determined experiment created after a hypothesis was generated, but observations that have been verified by HCPs who are prepared to go on the record are most definitely strong observational empirical evidence. Moreover the OBE from AWARE I is as close as you can get to scientific evidence as it is possible to get without it actually being scientific evidence. She is factually incorrect in believing there is no empirical evidence supporting NDEs.
LikeLike
No.pressure lol
LikeLike
I’m not a doctor, so I probably won’t understand anything. But I keep wondering why a possible complex activity during an NDE would be proof that a purely physicalist explanation is correct — that everything is caused by the brain. Even now, as I’m writing, or when I go to see my mother who has dementia, different parts of my brain are activated. Does that automatically mean that the experience I’m having is an illusion or not real? Hmm…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree Davide. Unless they have a time-stopped OBE they are able correlate with specific EEG activity then any association of EEG activity with a reported NDE is pure speculation. For physicalists it will definitely be a win, but only to a point. It does not prove that NDEs are the result of brain activity, but provides circumstantial evidence that it might be. However, what will still remain is the OBEs verified by HCPs who said that the patients were not only unconscious but had not heartbeat. There are countless others that occurred outside hospital settings too. Martial’s dismissal of these as not being empirical is somewhat arrogant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it’s first worth noting this researcher appears to me to want to push more relevancy for her research, and therefore for more funding. I think this and ideological bias explains her likely overegging her research and the data.
‘Our preliminary results suggest that the brains of patients who had near-death experiences showed greater complexity than those who did not.’
I don’t know what this means? We need to find out what data this statement represents, what it is supposed to ‘explain’ and then it would need to be independently replicated.
I highly doubt they have EEG activity from after cardiac arrest without CPR, this would contradict all previous research and knowledge in this area, would it not? I still don’t think this would ‘explain’ NDE’s and she would need to explain how a brain without a heartbeat and oxygen is producing this experience, veridical NDE’s etc.
‘what we observed is that as soon as several days after the acute severe crisis, we can see memory change in terms of content of the experience, which challenged what was found in the retrospective literature.
Some features appeared, and some others disappeared in their memories. For instance, you can have someone who doesn’t report an out-of-body experience upon awakening, however, two months later, the person does report it.’
Is this based on just the OBE case? A big statement based on one person. If not a big statement based on a few cases and again, it would contradict all previous research (as she states herself). I am skeptical of this statement, maybe the OBE person didn’t feel comfortable sharing straight away? We need to see details and if it is backed by data, again it needs to be independently replicated.
“Basically, we suggest the NDE is a defense mechanism for coping with a life-threatening situation. It permits the person to disconnect from the environment, from the surroundings, to be absorbed into a more peaceful mental experience.”
‘for some at least, have psychological benefits. A lot of people who experience NDEs say it’s life transforming. It allows them to evolve and change their own behavior or beliefs. We suggest that the NDE arises when you don’t have any other kind of escape. So there is this fight-or-flight mechanism, but when neither fight nor flight is possible, this alternative would arise’
Backing up what you said about this – under natural selection these people would have died and not passed on their genes. If a person had an NDE whilst still alive then they are less likely to survive as a predator, scavenger, another tribe etc could kill them more easily than someone who fights or runs. And again how is a brain without a heartbeat etc producing this experiencer? If the brain creates consciousness, you would not predict or expect this experience.
I think this is a pretty unscientific theory and reflects a personal worldview more than anything else.
‘When you meet entities or when you feel as though you’re out of your body, those are non-ordinary states of consciousness caused by disturbed perception. So you don’t actually meet your father in a tunnel of light, for example. But near-death experiences are real in the sense that the person who reported it did have this vivid and intense subjective experience’
This is a classic ‘cloaking my personal beliefs behind assumed truth (physicalism). If she wasn’t a physicalist and made similar assumed truth statements like this she would get much more push back and criticism for a comment like this. Again very unscientific, I am unimpressed. It is unscientific to ignore data you don’t like so blatantly like this.
I think to summarise this is mainly a scientist pushing for relevancy and more funding and I expect this research to add little to nothing of value to the NDE literature.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well put Robbie and welcome.
She is definitely venturing into Borjigin territory with her last statement, and as you say about the rest, we need to see the data before we can fully evaluate the extent to which her statements reflect the reality. The problem is that the media will lap it up, as they did with Borjigin, even if it is patently false or absurd. Borjigin was overtly physicalist and very rude about established researchers. Martial has been less vocal, and has participated in a range of studies, but she is definitely sticking her neck out further now she is ready to get the data out.
I find it interesting that she wouldn’t let Darren publish her interview. When I was interviewed by Darren, I said how important it was to put physicalists on the spot and demand that they either accept that well documented HCP verified OBEs such as those presented in the Self Does Not Die, are currently beyond the explanation of science, or openly say that these highly intelligent, respected, well paid, HCPs are either lying or stupid…and that is literally hundreds of them. That is the choice you are forced to make when considering their accounts.
@Darren…is that would you did, because if it is, then it would have really rattled her physicalist cage.
She would be wise when it comes to the final publication of her work to be a little less strident in shoehorning the data to fit her worldview, and instead let the data speak for itself. As I said, things are shifting. Many scientists now accept that the materialsm does not offer sufficient answers to some of the toughest questions, and likely never will e.g. the Origin of the Universe, life and consiousness.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good comment Robbie. Debate is good though, and the lady is quite entitlred to her opinion.
Paul
LikeLike
I never said she wasn’t entitled to her opinion?
LikeLike
Hi Robbie. I know you didn’t. We all have a different take on NDEs, and it’s important to listen to all points of view.
I can assure you, I wasn’t having a ‘dig’. I thought your reply was well written, and well thought out. As it happens I agree with you.
Have a great day, ok. I look forward to reading more of your contributions to the forum.
Kind Rgds Paul
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good piece! I’ll look out for her work in French. So far, I have to say I was left unimpressed by the development of the NDE-C as its validation was based on online self-reports of which 3/4 (if I remember correctly) of NDEs were not in a life-threatening situation or related to death. I wouldn’t develop a useful questionnaire to identify cats if my data criteria were having four legs and a tail…
Her work on the comparison of psychedelics and NDEs were of the same vein. She either seems to try very hard to make the data fit or jump on easier to control data.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed. That was something you reminded I meant to say in my piece…I think more and more Parnia was right to differentiate NDEs from REDs, and what Martial and Borjigin have done really rams that point home. While some other experiences may be authentic…like mine…for them to be worthy of research they must be associated with an actual period of cardiac death and the experience either occur during that period or in a coma immediately afterwards in which the patient never recovered consciousness at an intervening time point.
LikeLike
For starters she needs to look at the research of the university of Virginia division of perceptual studies. Like that of Bruce Greyson etc. Also I would recommend her to read Irreducible Mind, Beyond Physicalism and Consciousness Unbound for starters
LikeLiked by 2 people
Martial states that: “Our hypothesis is that NDEs occur just before or just after cardiac arrest, when a spike in activity can be observed” …
so Martial would be admitting that it is not to be expected—or is simply impossible—for a true perception to occur DURING cardiac arrest.
In her Neptune model, Martial highlights the massive release of neurotransmitters… The chemical synapse (which is mediated by neurotransmitters), despite being the most common, is not sufficient on its own to experience consciousness. Neurotransmitters alone are not capable of enabling the experience (or generation, according to the materialist view) of consciousness.
Consciousness is a complex process in which different brain areas and types of synapses (chemical and electrical—the latter does NOT involve the release of neurotransmitters) interact.
Relying, for example, on dopamine and its profuse release—so characteristic of schizophrenia—as an explanation for hyper-reality and the long-term transformative effects of NDEs would only be justifiable and valid if such transformative effects were first observed in schizophrenics as well, which is not the case… Highly speculative…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well put. It sounds like you have some knowledge of neurology…good to have your input.
Chemical and/or electrical activity alone do not prove anything specific about precisely what the brain is producing in terms of perceived effects for the owner of that brain. I have worked in neurology for a few years and my understanding from what I learned is that we have a general understanding of how neurotransmitters activate pathways that allow the brain to function at certain levels, but absolutely no idea how any of these pathways produce consciousness. Each neurotransmitter has so many downstream effects it is quite insane how you end up with such specific outcomes. My sense is that while increasing levels of certain neurotransmitters and/or activating certain frequencies may be associated with certain types of conscious activities, the same NTs and frequencies can be associated with multiple other activities…moreover chaotic production of these NTs would produce chaotic and random conscious experience, not the highly structured, and repeatable NDEs.
I worked in Alzheimers and sleep medicine, as well on the appetite pathway. So interesting.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks so much for your comment about your work, Orson. Best regards.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Here’s an article about the Martial NDE study.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053810025001722?via%3Dihub=&fbclid=IwdGRjcARTYX5jbGNrBFNgb2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHg-uxZMZPgzgju9hgFdGaLL0dyfQY3CA7Yre7wQGBU92o1J1LaIwXHK0JB4Z_aem_LNPMgJf-SskN3PaeGaokPA
LikeLike
Thanks X. This is about her NDE scale, not about her actual prospective study. Useful though.
LikeLike
OK ~ I’m not going to mention any names. Obviously.. A dear friend of mine had an out-of-body experience when she was 17. She’s a very good-looking woman. This wasn’t in the UK but in Eastern Europe. A man put a gun to her head and said take your clothes off. You can guess the rest.
My friend said she felt her ‘soul’ leave her body and was above her body. She could see everything that happened but felt no fear.
This is not an NDE, although she felt she would be killed. It raises the question for me. Is the fear of death enough to trigger an OOB experience? I think it is.
Paul
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lots of OBE’s from climbing falls and parachute failures suggest you are right – it’s some kind of surrender state too.
Lots of different human states/perspectives. Obviously the medical-type NDE OBE usually discussed on here must exhibit some physiological similarity with the climbing falls, and your friends surrender experience.
And we have other tricks like prayer, Ouija, hypnotism, drugs.
All clues to a different way to understand Experience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sure Max. I understand where you coming from. She’s not a ‘thick un’ though. In fact very intellent. She’s played chess at grandmaster level and has a good job in IT.
The story is from some years ago. My friend is much older now but still rembers it well. I trust what she say’s ~ no BS there. Her memory has never gone away. She’s 49 now and still rembers it. That speaks volumes to me.
Paul
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are some good podcasts about NDES. Seeking I, WTF Just Happened, Round trip death, Beyond with heather, the IANDS podcast and the AJ parr podcast to name a few
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not only did Martial say:
but she also added:
That observation seems similar to Borjigin’s dying rodent study – which is a good, because I can’t see any way to form a veridical visual OBE (that looks like the everyday world) without some network activity.
She’s used Lempel-Ziv complexity (LZC) to estimate complexity in past studies (i.e. her 2024 induced-fainting study).
Nothing mentioned about OBE’s.
Devil is in the detail, as you say.
Shawn Weeds NDE – accidental strangulation – although not cardiac arrest, for me is now one of the great NDE OBE’s. It puts the otherworldly NDE component as occurring during recovery, and the veridical OBE component occurring before it, as anomalous, and likely from third parties.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Check out Vincent Todd Tolman NDE. It has a peak in darren experence in it. Very interesting
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very good account of an NDE with veridical perception
LikeLiked by 1 person
From my perspective, beyond the arguments discussed in the previous posts, Martial’s theory presents two significant limitations. First, it does not adequately account for “negative” NDEs, which, although representing a minority and likely being underestimated, nonetheless challenge her claim that “the NDE is a defense mechanism for coping with a life-threatening situation, allowing the individual to disengage from the environment and become absorbed in a more peaceful mental experience.” Second, the theory does not address the phenomenon of “shared NDEs,” in which elements of the experience, such as the perception of a tunnel, are reportedly shared between the NDERs and other individuals present in the room.
LikeLiked by 2 people
so, what would the implications of her study be should the questions in your post all be answered in her study? Would NDEs officially have a strictly materialist explanation? Perhaps a combination of materialist and otherwise when one considers veridical NDE cases? Or is it not that simple as to put labels on such phenomena
LikeLiked by 1 person
If Martial has a case or cases, where a patient has an NDE and they have EEG data that could be associated with consciousness during CPR, then that would provide circumstantial evidence to support the hypothesis that NDEs are a result of brain activity. However, while it provides evidence to support that hypothesis, it does not provide evidence against NDEs being of non-natural origins. Given the fact that Parnia had patients who had EEG activity during CPR but had no recollections (2 I think in AWARE II), then it is fair to say that EEG activity is not a reliable marker for consciousness.
There is no natural explanation for HCP verified veridical NDEs except that they were fabricated which is why Martial is barking up the wrong tree as there are way too many of them now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure I understand. It would support the hypothesis of NDEs being the result of brain activity but wouldn’t preclude NDEs being of non-natural origins? How so? Can you explain that further (including the Parnia stuff you just mentioned) if you don’t mind me asking.
LikeLike
You can have multiple competing hypotheses that explain the cause of an observed phenomenon. The process of science is creating hypotheses, testing them through experimentation until incorrect ones are proven false and evidence for correct ones is gathered. Once a hypothesis has sufficient supporting evidence it becomes theory, and at a certain point the weight of evidence may make the theory proven.
There are two fundamentally opposed hypotheses explaining the phenomenon of NDEs:
1. They are caused by natural processes in the brain around the time just before or after cardiac death pointing to the underlying reality that here is no eternal soul.
2. They are the result of the consciousness leaving the body when the body dies. The soul is independent of the body, able to survive beyond death and may have the potential to be eternal.
At the moment there is insufficient evidence to disprove either hypothesis. When you really think about it there is virtually no evidence to support hypothesis 1. The only evidence to date is proximate circumstantial evidence from rats and coma patients showing some EEG activity before death, and in the case of rats for a few seconds after death. None of this activity has been associated with an NDE, which is why it barely qualifies as evidence. If Martial has EEG data from a patient who was undergoing CPR and who had no heartbeat, who later recalled a bona fide NDE (and we need to look at her scale again to see if it really does measure it properly) then this is slightly stronger supporting evidence of theory 1. It still could be coincidental…the signals would only be associated with someone having the experience, and association is not necessarily causation. While being a very long way from compelling, it is nonetheless evidence.
Imagine a murder case. This kind of evidence is like the killer being proven to be in the same neighbourhood as the victim at the time of the murder.
There is a lot more evidence for hypothesis 2.
1. Thousands of years in which humans from divergent societies understood that there was an eternal soul.
2. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people reporting NDEs in the past 70 years since CPR was discovered.
3. Hundreds of well documented retrospective reports of OBEs verified by doctors.
4. One OBE verified by doctors in the context of a prospective research study looking into NDEs (AWARE I).
5. The fact that NDEs were extremely rare before CPR, and now relatively common. This points to return from actual death being central to the experience, and that the experience may have occurred during the time of death when the brain is completely inactive.
WRT Parnia’s evidence, it could be regarded as weak evidence against 1. From my understanding, and this may be incorrect since the data was not clearly presented, two of the patients who survived to interview had EEG data but no recollection of an experience, poiting to EEG activity being an artefact or result of CPR unrelated to conscious experience. (My belief it that this EEG activity is the brain trying to reboot and bring the body back to life). I don’t think we were told if these 2 patients had data consistent with consciousness…just that there was data, hence its weakness.
Currently the balance of evidence strongly favours hypothesis 2. If the world wasn’t fixated with scientific proof – namely evidence generated directly via an experiment, then I think the argument would be regarded as settled, but we do not live in that world. We live in a world that will latch on to the flimsiest of evidence for hypothesis 1.
Does that make sense?
LikeLike
The explanation for any anomalous recollections from the NDE OBE is going to be natural? Martial’s ideas are classical approximations – not how nature (Experience works).
Once one accepts that Spacetime and Quantum Mechanics likely emerge together, hand-in-hand from a more primitive mathematical structure (as per Nima, Penington, Maldacena), all the common anomalous human experiences finally have a way of being understood.
One has to let go of our traditional notions of causality. The new theory is that kinematic patterns on the boundary of an infinite cylinder, add-up non-causally via wormholes (outside of spacetime), resulting in Experience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
that does make sense and thank you so much for being thorough. One thing I’m not sure of though is that I heard that the only reason EEG wasn’t detected in Parnia’s study is that the equipment hadn’t detected it or something to that effect? In which case, wouldn’t it mean that EEG was possible during NDE patients so long as Parnia had the equipment to do so if that makes sense?
LikeLike
He did detect EEG, but not in many. Those that had data had no recollections. Those that had recollections had no data at all.
As I said, even if you have EEG signals with someone who later reports an NDE, it doesn’t disprove them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Both ideas 1 and 2 posit separation/isolation… either something separate and isolated leaves the body, or, it’s all happening in a separate isolated brain.
Both ideas are based upon an implicit assumption… that people are isolated individuals walking around in a separate isolated world, with other separate isolated beings.
That assumption is the problem.
We’re actually stuck within Experience, and that Experience seems to be a shared construction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Max, you are working on a different “assumption”. Surely there is an element of both being true. NDEs point to this in that while people retain unique identities, they feel much more connected once separated from their bodies, but the experience they report is one of separation and individual consciousness.
LikeLike
Orson, Yes, that’s how you understand this phenomena – through the lens of your past experience, which we were all taught.
If one expands ones frame of reference from NDE OBE’s, to include all common anomalous human experiences (past life experiences, crisis apparitions, death bed visions, Ouija board, premonitions, telepathy, ghosts/apparitions, timeslips etc), one sees a similar mechanism at work to explain them all.
If one includes all our scientific observations/evidence regarding indirect/direct perception, optical illusions, interference theories of memory, colour constancy, superconductive-like properties of certain brain structure.
Then add in cutting edge theoretical physics theories from Juan Maldacena, Nima Arkani-Hamed, Geoff Penington etc.
…the assumption of ‘isolation’ can’t be sustained.
We are all stuck within Experience. We seem to be individual perspectives *within* Experience, and Experience is a shared construction.
A simple analogy can be made using lego bricks…
We all share the same lego brick, allowing us to share Experience. But we all build different structures out of these lego bricks, allowing us to have an individual perspective within Experience. Yet those structures we have built, are still constructed from a lego brick we all share.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent layman’s article in Quanta Magazine from 2024, describing just how far Nima and friends have come in discovering a simple and primitive mathematical structure from which shared Experience seems to emerge…
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-reveal-a-quantum-geometry-that-exists-outside-of-space-and-time-20240925/
LikeLiked by 1 person
I spent a few days re-transcribing Shawn Weed’s 1994 Marine Corps NDE OBE incident from his own youtube channel, where he was accidentally strangled by Corporal Toby Page using a rough hay rope noose.
While Shawn’s body hung semi-conscious or fully unconscious, he described getting free from the noose, and going to sit beside his two friends Corporal Toby Page, and Corporal Jason Laycock on their bunks. When Toby leaned over and said, “I don’t think he’s playing,”.
Shawn turned at the same time as Jason to see his own body hanging 30 feet away. Crucially, he could initially see only a blurry outline exactly what would be expected from the poor distance vision of the person actively staring at the scene.
But Shawn also tells us about Jason Laycock:
My contention is that the anomalous veridical information in OBE’s comes from third parties. Only when Shawn stood up and walked closer did the image resolve into “that’s my face.”
Shawn’s own physical eyes could not have been involved in his Out-of-Body perception – unless one proposes that souls or spirits carry their visual disabilities with them into the afterlife?
Instead, Shawn’s out-of-body experience strongly suggests it incorporated anomalous information from Jason Laycock’s experience.
This is the same mechanism seen in Olaf Blanke’s wakeful patient, who reported the perception of her left arm suddenly shortening – exactly as the researchers standing beside her right side would have seen it – while they electrically disrupted the patients neural network.
It also has similarities with Climber-falls and parachute-failure survivors who report seeing themselves plummeting from the vantage point of climbing teammates, or colleagues onboard the Jump plane. In these cases extreme fear may have been correlated with triggering Event Related Desynchronization (ERD) creating the same low-energy receptive window.
In each case the veridical element is not a challenge to a brain-based experience, it is the strongest support for the brains involvement, but in a wider more generalized way than is currently accepted.
The veridical accuracy in the OBE’s comes from access to a third parties experience during a low-energy receptive window.
Veridical OBEs, therefore, do not point to a spirit leaving the body. They point to a living brain that has briefly gained anomalous access to someone else’s experience.
This is a far more significant, and world-altering, paradigm about the living than any claim about the dead.
LikeLike
Max, I’ve heard of out-of-body experiences from people who didn’t wear glasses, and at first they also saw verifiable objects (which were later verified), and they saw them as blurry as well.
LikeLike
Excellent, do you have a link to these veridical OBE’s?
LikeLike
Hi Max, interesting one mate. You make a fair and valid point.
I’m going to give an answer to your comment. I agree ~ a little.
1. Oxygen deprivation, I totally disagree. NDE’s without oxygen experience the same stuff.
2. Stress response. Yes, that can happen.
I don’t think it’s ever going to be as simple as slapping a label like “strictly materialist” on NDEs, even if a study answers a lot of the common questions. You might explain some mechanisms in the brain—oxygen deprivation, stress response, memory reconstruction—but that doesn’t automatically close the chapter on everything people report. Memory isn’t a perfect recording, especially around trauma or loss of consciousness. The detail about blurry vision could line up with expectation just as much as it could with something genuinely “out of body”.
3. Veridical cases—where people report things they supposedly couldn’t have known. If those can be reliably verified under controlled conditions, then it becomes harder to make it materialist.
So yes, there are many possible explanations. We don’t know the answers to.
Labelling it too quickly either way feels a bit premature.
Rgds Paul
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Paul
Thanks for your thoughtful reply,
Just to clarify my actual position isn’t about labelling NDEs materialist or non-materialist at all. A split I see as a redundant division anyway.
I’m just exploring how veridical OBE information can come from third-party sources in a genuinely different way.
I’m drawing from Geoff Penington’s replica-wormhole work and Nima Arkani-Hamed’s ideas on emergent spacetime (Experience), using ancient highly-conserved structures in the brain that show superconductivity-like effects, that would allow Experience to emerge by adding-up outside of spacetime.
The blurry-vision observation was just a specific data point I’m checking against real testimonies. So far it seems absent in the strong veridical OBE cases, and rare in OBE states at all.
Happy to discuss the physics angle if you’re interested.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think there too many OBE cases where they had perception that didn’t seem to come from any specific person for this theory to hold water.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi robbie
In this idea there is no need for the veridical OBE information to originate from only one third party.
Indeed I need third parties (plural) to explain the common medical-type floating veridical OBE – that’s the idea that if there is veridical information coming from what is happening on both sides of the patients bed. The patients sense-of-self gets located higher, in an attempt to reconcile how the information from both sides of the bed can be logically seen.
I posted an inaccurate analogy here to try and help people to understand:
https://x.com/maxxbone/status/1994060133173723380?s=20
LikeLike
Max_B, You’re an extremistic disruptive factor who’s obsessed with their own great idea and you try to force it down everyones throat showing disregard to anyone taking a different approach and you keep popping up trying this again and again and i really don’t know why orson lets you get away with this because this is not peaceful but harassing.
LikeLike
Hello Denise. I “put up with” Max because he offers a unique perspective and ideas that are truly innovative and interesting…even if I think they may be wrong. I can’t actually disprove them…they align with the data just like alternative hypotheses like those that most share here. I find his thoughts get my neurones fired up as the theory he espouses is intriguing. However, he does sometimes have a way of expressing himself that is somewhat “irksome”…but it is worth it to have us think deeper on these issues.
Just a word…I have allowed your comments as these are your first…and while I tolerate a degree of jousting on here, I will shut down people who get too personal or insulting very quickly. This is not a warning, as you haven’t ventured there, but you’ve got a wee bit close 🙂 this place is about debating ideas that relate to the understanding of our existence, sometimes robustly, but ad hominem attacks are a big no no. I have lost some great contributors over the years due to things getting personal…Chad the atheist, and Tim of course, who I lost my cool with. It is sad that they are not here any more.
LikeLike
Thank you Orson for another update in the field. Personally I welcome more people studying this phenomenon, regardless of what their views may be. At the very least it will hopefully add new data points to a field that doesn’t seem to be studied much.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Read the book Lucid Dying by Sam Parnia. As well as Irreducible Mind Beyond Physicalism and Consciousness Unbound for starters
LikeLike
Anyone know if Dr. Parnia is planning to do AWARE 3
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s an article by Sam Parnia
Source: Psychiatrist.com https://share.google/wrRptH3lvh6oelUEM
LikeLike
interestkng study. Also interesting is tge use of the RED term.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520426001177?via%3Dihub
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interesting study Z. The thing that ‘jumped’ out for me is >>episodic and autobiographical memory<<
Ty for sharing. Paul
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello, Ben and blog readers!
Thank you for the updates. I’m very happy to see that the blog is active again — it’s a space I consider special for sharing knowledge, and it’s great to know you’ve continued it.
I hope everything is going well in New Zealand, or in whichever country you may be at the moment. Unfortunately, I’ve noticed that this year has been marked by many conflicts around the world, which is quite regrettable.
Here in Brazil, we will have elections for the Presidency, as well as for senators, federal deputies, and state deputies. I hope the process unfolds smoothly and that the results reflect thoughtful decisions by voters.
And how are things over there, Ben? I hope everything is going well!
Wishing all of us a great start to the week.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Regarding the research that attempts to explain the Near-Death Experience (NDE) phenomenon from a materialist perspective, I insist that such researchers actually explore and explain the accounts documented by Sabom, Van Lommel (2001), and Parnia (in the AWARE I study). In particular, they should conclude how people with their eyes closed are able to observe their surroundings with clarity. It is interesting to note that this phenomenon — observing the environment with closed eyes — is similar (and, to me, completely overlapping) to a phenomenon that I believe most North Americans have already heard of. This is something that has been induced in laboratories for decades (and continues to this day), gathering overwhelming statistical evidence, with positive results even from professional skeptics: the so-called Ganzfeld Effect. Ganzfeld has statistically demonstrated that Remote Viewing — the ability to observe places, people, and objects without using the normal senses — can be induced in a laboratory setting. I invite the reader to consult the meta-analyses by Charles Honorton, Jessica Utts (a renowned statistician), Daryl Bem (a member of the American Psychological Association), and others, who have attached their names to this phenomenon and attest to its veracity. The numbers are striking, as shown by Cardeña in the APA’s journal, American Psychologist. Materialist theories, to this day, have not explained the mechanism behind this phenomenon. The primary candidate — ELF waves — was ruled out as early as the 1970s by Stephan Schwartz. The phenomenon therefore remains anomalous. So the question is: in the Ganzfeld effect, how does a human being manage to observe something in their surroundings (often at great distances) without using conventional senses? For us, the general public — or at least for me — this demonstrates that human beings possess something that “leaves” or “reaches out” to observe locations, something that is not physical. Sometimes, I sincerely believe that it is no longer necessary to go very far to admit that the NDE phenomenon is anomalous and non-physical, at least regarding the mechanisms involved in vision during these experiences.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reference Articles on Ganzfeld Experiments
Main Articles:
1. Ganzfeld 1990 – Honorton et al.
Title: Psi Communication in the Ganzfeld: Experiments with an Automated Testing System and a Comparison with a Meta-Analysis of Earlier Studies
Authors: Charles Honorton, Rick E. Berger, Mario P. Varvoglis, Marta Quant, Patricia Derr, Ephraim I. Schechter, Diane C. Ferrari
Publication: Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 54, pp. 99–139 (June 1990)
2. Ganzfeld 1991 – Utts
Title: Replication and Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology
Author: Jessica Utts
Publication: Statistical Science, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 363–378 (November 1991)
3. Ganzfeld 1992 – Schlitz & Honorton
Title: Ganzfeld Psi Performance Within an Artistically Gifted Population
Authors: Marilyn Jean Schlitz, Charles Honorton
Publication: Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 86, No. 2, pp. 83–98 (April 1992)
4. Ganzfeld 1994 – Radin, McAlpine & Cunningham
Title: Geomagnetism and Psi in the Ganzfeld
Authors: Dean I. Radin, Stephen McAlpine, Stephanie Cunningham
Publication: Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (also presented at Parapsychological Association conferences around 1994)
5. Ganzfeld 1994 – Bem & Honorton
Title: Does Psi Exist? Replicable Evidence for an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer
Authors: Daryl J. Bem, Charles Honorton
Publication: Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 115, No. 1, pp. 4–18 (January 1994)
Bonus: Articles by Skeptics with Positive Results
1. Delgado-Romero & Howard (2005)
Title: Finding and Correcting Problematic Research Literatures
Authors: Edward A. Delgado-Romero, George S. Howard
Publication: The Humanistic Psychologist, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 293–303 (2005)
Context: Discusses skepticism toward meta-analyses showing positive results in areas such as parapsychology and intercessory prayer, suggesting that the scientific literature may contain imperfections.
2. Smith & Savva (2008)
Title: Experimenter Effects in the Ganzfeld
Authors: Matthew D. Smith, Louie Savva
Publication: Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 72, No. 891, pp. 65–77 (April 2008)
Context: Investigates the “experimenter effect,” analyzing how researchers’ expectations and attitudes influence the outcomes of Ganzfeld-ESP (extrasensory perception) sessions.
LikeLike
Lets a dig a little dipper, Luscus. Hearing is the last thing to go to. I did some volunteer wok in a hopise many years ago, Hearing was always the last thing to knock off the radar?
Do you think hearing could account for your point?
Kind Rgds Paul
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello, Paul! Good evening in the United Kingdom. Regarding hearing: I agree that it may explain part of what near-death experiencers hear, since hearing is one of the last senses to cease and plays an important role in this process. However, when it comes to rich visual descriptions — often occurring in ICUs or CPR centers, environments the person has never seen before — hearing alone cannot explain details such as the color of the equipment, the professionals’ clothing, or the layout of the environment. For this reason, I consider Remote Viewing to be a more plausible explanation for such cases. Sabom, for example, administered a questionnaire comparing near-death experiencers with experienced heart patients who had never had an NDE. The near-death experiencers achieved a much higher accuracy rate than the heart patients, even though the latter had already been in hospital settings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aside of ELF, you seem to have a rather big repertoire of informations speaking against the current study. Do you have any more interesting ammonition to shake the foundations of Martials world?
LikeLike
Hello, Denise! Happy middle of the week to you. I always recommend that people read Professor Etzel Cardeña’s article, published in the journal American Psychologist (of the American Psychological Association), titled “The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review.” It’s a robust review of parapsychological phenomena. Fun fact: recently, a major TV broadcaster in my country interviewed Cardeña on a prime-time news magazine show, precisely about near-death experiences (NDEs). You can easily find the article by searching Google for the title I mentioned. I wish you a good morning, afternoon, or evening, depending on your country!
LikeLike
By the way, that program aired last Sunday. Professor Cardeña (at 4 minutes and 26 seconds) is briefly mentioned in the interview — which, unfortunately, is only available in Portuguese, but I believe YouTube’s automatic captioning and translation features might help. A neurosurgeon I’ve mentioned several times here on the blog, Dr. Edson Amâncio, is also cited (at 11 minutes and 25 seconds).
LikeLiked by 1 person
One unfortunate fact is that the program did not interview two crucial figures: Dr. Sam Parnia and Dr. Pim van Lommel. The importance of these two researchers goes without saying. Parnia has demonstrated that the phenomenon does indeed occur, and van Lommel put forward a fundamental argument in his article published in The Lancet in 2001: physiological, neurophysiological, and psychological factors, taken alone, do not explain the mechanism of near-death experiences (NDEs). If the causes were purely physiological — such as the reaction of brain cells to anoxia — most people should report an NDE, which is not the case (only 18% report one).
In the program, they emphasized skeptics who claim, without any foundation, that the brain causes NDEs. They presented no counterargument to van Lommel’s logical point on this issue, nor did they even mention him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, and one observation, Denise: in the journal article written by Cardeña, there is an interesting phenomenon, interconnected within the category of “Extrasensory Perception”, called “Precognition” (that is, the anomalous ability to sense the future). The numbers are overwhelming — both in Ganzfeld-induced tests or with other techniques, and in tests with exceptional subjects — astronomically exceeding chance in the meta-analyses described in the article. It is a fact that some scientists (such as Edwin C. May and others) have tried to theorize about this anomalous phenomenon, but they admit they have no idea what mechanism allows information to travel from the future to the present (not even the theory holds up regarding the mechanism). To read May’s article, you can search Google using this citation: “Marwaha, S.B., & May, E.C. (2015). Rethinking extrasensory perception: Towards a multiphasic model of precognition. SAGE Open, January-March, 1-17.”
LikeLike
Thank you for your response Lucus. I don’t want to put your response into AI. I would prefer to answer as a ‘human’.
Are we going with NDE’s or PSI with this one?
Rgds Paul
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello, Paul! Good start to the week to you and to all readers of Orson’s blog!
Regarding the possibility that the phenomenon might be electromagnetic: there is research refuting both high and low frequencies as vehicles capable of transmitting information to a person — whether in the Ganzfeld effect or in cases of exceptional psychics like Ingo Swann and Sean Harribance.
Interestingly, one of the greatest skeptics of the contemporary world, Dr. Michael Persinger (who passed away in 2018, if I’m not mistaken), maintained until the end of his life that remote viewing would be a phenomenon explained by ELF (extremely low frequencies). However, as early as the 1970s, Stephan Schwartz had already refuted this hypothesis: ELF frequencies carry very few bits of information per second — insufficient to explain the thousands of bits required in a typical remote viewing session, something extensively tested by Schwartz on Ingo Swann inside a submarine.
Furthermore, the phenomenon was also tested by Schwartz in its precognitive form, with Edwin C. May present (a scientist with the CIA’s Stargate Project for many years). Once again, the electromagnetic hypothesis was refuted, since ELF does not travel from the future to the present.
I recommend everyone read Stephan Schwartz’s work on Ingo Swann and other psychics related to Project Sanguine and Deep Quest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I write this because I would like to update something that some skeptics still insist on claiming without any foundation: that ELF would explain the phenomenon of remote viewing. Regarding the question mentioned earlier: yes, with absolute personal certainty, I believe that the Near-Death Experience (NDE) phenomenon is closely interconnected with the phenomenon of Extrasensory Perception — both in remote viewing and, mainly, in its precognitive aspect. As a matter of curiosity, there was an NDE that, unfortunately, I can’t remember either the victim or the author who studied it, but which involved a precognitive account. In it, the victim repeatedly dreamed that she would have severe uterine complications when giving birth to her son at the hospital — a rare complication that was dismissed by the doctors at the time, with the exception of the physician in charge of the blood bank.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 1 person
Out of curiosity, there is a film in which Schwartz asked Ingo Swann and another psychic to locate a shipwreck that was completely unknown to absolutely everyone for many, many years, somewhere off the coast of California (if I’m not mistaken). Remarkably — especially for skeptics — they located almost exactly the actual position of the shipwreck and provided precise details about it.
Everything was filmed and recorded, which makes the case even more interesting and further reinforces Schwartz’s research.
LikeLike
Hi Luus,
Yes I agreel
Hearing alone cannot explain details such as the colour of the equipment, the professionals’ clothing, or the layout of the environment.
Yes, it can. Our senses pick up on details. Hearing needs one argument to shoot it down in flames.
Paul
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did you have a typo or do you truly believe your hearing can tell you what color a dress is when your eyes are closed or what explicitly someone is wearing because this would feels so insensitive to all the blind people in this world like “just hear a bit harder then you can see!” Sorry if this was a bit rude but I found no other way to describe my disappointment.
LikeLike
Something else I also found interesting in that broadcaster’s interview was the account given by former football player Oscar — whom Paul probably knows well, since he played for Chelsea in England 😁, and also for my favorite team, São Paulo FC 😁.
From what was described, his experience does not seem to me to be exactly an NDE. Personally, I believe his account is more similar to what Dr. Sam Parnia classifies as hallucinations or experiences not necessarily associated with a genuine near-death experience.
(Ah, Paul, just to lighten things up a bit 😅: do you support Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal, or another English club?)
LikeLike
Hi Lucas, I’m not sure which ‘Paul’ you are speaking to now?
TBH I don’t really follow football. A freind of mine lives in Kanas, and is a real fan of the Kansas City Chiefs. So that’s my team.
He was well tuned in but sadly had a heath problem that turned within two weeks ~ very badly.
Enjoy your day.
Paulie
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ahem…football is a game played with feet, you are referring to that strange American aberration that is a cross between Rugby and proper football 😉
@Lucas…if I were to support any football team it would be my former hometown, Brighton, otherwise known as the Seagulls. Now that I live in NZ I don’t really follow football (any forms of it except maybe Rugby football)…cricket is more my thing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My condolences to you, my friend. I was not aware of this unfortunate fact.
I sincerely wish your friend a full recovery from the mentioned health problem.
I also hope you have a good day!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ty Lucus. My friend will never recover. In many ways, it is related to the forum. He was a hard-working and kind man. Before he had his own intelligence and home, Then he was moved to a care home. Jeff had dementia, and it kicked in pretty fast.
You won’t have guessed. Dementa often takes some time to show ~ not in this case. It was BOOM.
Paulie
LikeLiked by 1 person
So sorry to hear about Jeff. As you may recall from some of my previous posts, my father died of Alzheimer’s and I worked in the field for a few years. It is an horrendous disease which they are now making steps towards treating.
I will never forget the first time I saw my father in a home. I hadn’t seen him for a few months as I was living in Canada at the time, and the change had been dramatic. I literally burst into tears seeing his state. It is one of the hardest things to square with my faith. My Dad was relatively young…in his mid 60s, when he started to develop symptoms. He had been a good Christian man and served the church, but as Jesus says “The rain falls on the good and the bad”. Life just happens and one of our purposes is to keep our focus on what lies beyond this life through both the good and bad. The pain is real, the suffering is real, but it is not eternal, and as a Christian I believe that for those who make the right choices and take the right path, once the tears end the joy will be eternal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. Im with you Orson. It just quicky it happened .My friend Jeff, was doing his daily blog. Then it stopped. Just like that.
He was an animal lover and a kind man. If you were homeless, you would have a seat at his table ~ no worries,
Paulie
LikeLiked by 1 person
So upsetting for you. I believe that kind of man will be assured a place in God’s heaven.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good post Orsen, I’ii say no more. Sorry to hear about your dad.
I lost my mother to bowl cancer. Yeah it hits hard VERY hard.
Paulie
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would slso suggest to check out the research of Bruce Greyson and the university of Virginia division of perceptual studies. As well as Dr. Pim Van Lommel, Jerrery Long, and Dr. Melvin Morse research with children’s NDES
LikeLike
Check out bind people NDE’s ~ makes for interesting viewing. I say viewing, because most of it is on YouTube.
Paulie
LikeLike
Should read ‘blind people’s NDEs.’
LikeLike
Researcher Kennith Ring wrote about blind peoples NDES in his book Mindsight. It’s a good read
LikeLike
Good midweek to you, Orson, and to all the readers of the blog!
I’m not sure whether this topic has already been discussed here, but there is an author, Stuart Hameroff, who apparently proposed, as early as 2022, a possible causal mechanism involving the intentional movement of neural microtubules by consciousness. The study in question can be found under the following title:
Hameroff, S. (2022). Consciousness, cognition and the neuronal cytoskeleton – a new paradigm needed in neuroscience. Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience, 15.
I have previously discussed in this space the meta-analyses on micro-PK, such as those by Bösch, Steinkamp, and Boller (2006), as well as that of Varvoglis and Bancel (2015, p. 274), with Bancel concluding that micro-PK presents a statistically favorable basis for its validity.
In this context, researcher von Lucadou appears to have developed one of the most sophisticated methodologies to date for testing micro-PK in random number generators (RNGs), with results that were later replicated by other scholars. Some relevant articles include:
Walach, H., Horan, M., Hinterberger, T., & von Lucadou, W. (2020). Evidence for anomalistic correlations between human behavior and a random event generator: Result of an independent replication of a micro-PK experiment. Psychology of Consciousness.
Walach, H., Kirmse, K. A., Sedlmeier, P., Vogt, H., Hinterberger, T., & von Lucadou, W. (2022). Nailing jelly: The replication problem seems to be insurmountable. Two failed replications of the Matrix Experiment. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 35(4), 788–828.
Personally, I consider micro-PK plausible, especially in light of the statistical conclusions presented by Bancel. The central question now would be whether Hameroff is correct in his theoretical proposal, which could provide an explanatory basis for the phenomenon: the possibility that consciousness can directly influence neural microtubules.
LikeLike
Observation: In their meta-analysis, Bösch, Steinkamp, and Boller concluded that the results could be explained by the so-called “file drawer effect” — that is, the intentional non-publication of negative findings. This interpretation was largely based on the fact that studies conducted by Helmut Schmidt, involving only two participants, produced results far above what would be expected by chance, whereas the other experiments showed more moderate effects.
In contrast, Bancel argued, based on mathematical simulations, that an extremely large and statistically unrealistic file drawer effect — even under worst-case scenarios — would be required to invalidate the observed data. According to his analysis, the two participants in Schmidt’s studies may have been exceptional subjects capable of producing highly significant results, particularly given that Schmidt carefully handpicked his experimental participants.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is also a relevant meta-analysis on Macro-PK conducted by Dean Radin and Ferrari (1991), in which 59 studies involving dice throws with the intention of mental influence were examined, compared to 31 control studies without such intention. In the overall dataset, the meta-analysis results for the intention-based studies were statistically significant, indicating a deviation from chance of approximately 1 in more than 1,300 trials — a small effect, but highly significant in statistical terms. In contrast, the 31 control studies showed no significant deviation whatsoever: Z = 0.36, p > 0.05. To consult the original study, I recommend searching for: “Radin, D., & Ferrari, D. C. (1991). Effects of consciousness on the fall of dice: A meta-analysis. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 5, 61–83.” It is particularly interesting to note that both micro-PK and Macro-PK studies demonstrated statistically significant deviations from chance when compared to control studies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I found a video that explains micro-PK as a whole very well. The presenter does an excellent job covering both the 2006 meta-analysis and Dr. Lucadou’s theory.
LikeLike
Regarding Helmut Schmidt, the researcher I previously mentioned in connection with the 2006 meta-analysis, I encourage everyone to explore his articles on an old internet site dedicated to publishing his research, as well as interviews with figures such as Dean Radin and Edwin C. May:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/
One particularly fascinating aspect is that Schmidt was a global pioneer in micro-PK research, especially through the use of truly random RNGs (random number generators). Even more remarkable — and, at least to me, somewhat unsettling — was his identification of a highly anomalous phenomenon that remains unexplained by any field of science to this day: so-called Retro-PK, that is, the hypothesis that micro-PK could somehow inexplicably influence past recorded events from the present.
The phenomenon was so impactful that skeptics and critics accused Schmidt of outright fraud in his experiments. However, these accusations ultimately did not hold up. Following this period of intense scrutiny, Schmidt began conducting his studies under careful supervision from multiple independent researchers affiliated with other independent laboratories. These groups received copies of the experiments, helped determine experimental protocols, and closely monitored their implementation. Yet, astonishingly, the results continued to demonstrate statistical deviations ranging from hundreds to thousands of odds against chance.
For these reasons, I believe Helmut Schmidt’s work is well worth serious study, particularly for those interested in the most controversial and challenging frontiers of consciousness research and mind-matter interaction.
LikeLike
Have a great weekend, Orson, and to all the blog readers as well!
I’m not sure if you’re already asleep, Orson 😅. Unfortunately, the time zone difference between Brazil and New Zealand is quite significant (it’s almost 9 a.m. here), which makes live interactions a bit more complicated.
What I’d like to know is whether you agree with Dr. Stuart Hameroff regarding his theory about neural microtubules and the possible influence of consciousness on these microtubules through the phenomenon of micro-PK. There is also a researcher named Benjamin T. Hendel who supports the idea that neural microtubules — structures which, according to this perspective, may play a central role in neurons related to cerebral consciousness and the physical behavior of the human body — are controlled by consciousness through micro-PK.
If Hameroff is correct about the role of microtubules, and considering that, within the conventional view, nothing should be able to directly control quantum events, then micro-PK could represent evidence to the contrary. Therefore, if this hypothesis were ever validated, I believe the debate surrounding consciousness could reach an entirely new level, potentially strengthening the possibility that, at least in terms of causal mechanism, consciousness possesses aspects that are distinct from or partially independent of physical matter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting post, Lucas. Thanks for sharing. Stuart Hameroff also has a Facebook page. It’s worth joining as it shows all his latest work.
Have a great weekend too.
Rgds Paulie
LikeLiked by 1 person
IIRC it was Stuart’s writings that connected me to Guenter Albrecht-Buehler’s interesting work on the cell centriole and cell intelligence, which Nobel prize winner Barbara McClintock also hinted at.
I think Stuart deserves much credit for promoting, and has been correct about, the centriole and other cylindrical microtubule (MT) structures as being a strong candidate for the seat of Experience, but I’m not a fan of ORCH, although Penrose’s involvement has taken away the stigma of researching this area by other scientists.
For myself, all the processing takes place outside spacetime, the MT (and everything else in Experience) are just the Result of that processing.
Occasionally, and also more reliably under some conditions, we get access to a Result of that processing (Experience), which is clearly not our own Experience. They are a direct clue that the naive way we’ve been taught to understand the world (Experience) is just an approximation, and incorrect. We’ve categorized such Experiences and labeled them as phenomena with all sorts of names, and tried to provide various stories to understand them. They all seem incorrect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good afternoon, Max!
Sorry to stray a bit from the main topic, but I would like to know your opinion regarding the meta-analysis by Bösch et al. (2006) and the differing conclusions presented by Peter A. Bancel concerning micro-PK.
In particular, I am interested in knowing whether you find Bösch’s interpretation or Bancel’s perspective more convincing.
2006 Meta-analysis:
Bösch, H., Steinkamp, F., & Boller, E. (2006). Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators—A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(4), 497–523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.497
Peter A. Bancel’s Response:
Varvoglis, M., & Bancel, P. A. (2015). Micro-psychokinesis. In E. Cardeña, J. Palmer, & D. Marcusson-Clavertz (Eds.), Parapsychology: A handbook for the 21st century (pp. 266–281). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
LikeLike
Good weekend, Max!
I extracted these paragraphs from an article by Peter A. Bancel titled: “MICRO-PSYCHOKINESIS Mario Varvoglis and Peter Bancel Institut Métapsychique International”
In this case, they state the following:
Regarding the real cause of heterogeneity (the high-performing studies):
• “A substantial source of heterogeneity, we suggest, lies in those studies that cannot be reasonably accounted for by publication bias namely the studies with high Z-scores.”
Regarding the specific numbers that break the BSB model:
• “About 40 of the total dataset have Z’s between 2.6 and 5; these contribute nearly half of the total heterogeneity.”
Regarding the impossibility of the “file drawer effect” explaining these data:
• “To generate these studies by artifactual selection would require an extremely large filedrawer.”
Regarding the methodological flaw in the 2006 meta-analysis simulation:
• “The BSB simulation ignores them, which is why the residual heterogeneity of their model is so large”
Observation: Footnote 14, which presents the expectation versus reality calculation:
• “We would expect 2 studies to have a Z-score of 2 or more in the database; instead, we note that there were 40.”
In this case, I would like to know whether you agree with these 2015 calculations by the authors.
Wishing you a great weekend in advance!
LikeLike
Hi Lucas, As you know, I’m extremely skeptical that RNG’s are capable of showing an effect. Long thread here I took part in a few years back… which included discussions about Bancel IIRC
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-the-global-consciousness-project
If we’re doing experiments that can’t get a clear answer, which don’t allows us in principle to discern a mechanism, I can’t say that I’m very interested in this area of investigation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Max. I may not reply, or I might ~ depeniding on time. What’s your point?
Have a great day. It will be tomorrow UK time when I get back to you.
Paulie
LikeLike
I understand your point, Max.
I can see that you have a solid knowledge of physics, so, if I’m not interrupting, I would like to know your opinion about a phenomenon documented in American Psychologist in 2018 that is deeply connected to extrasensory perception: precognition.
According to the journal, the statistical results presented were extremely significant, suggesting the genuine occurrence of the phenomenon:
https://www.scienceandpsi.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Cardena-American-Psychologist-psi-2018-1.pdf
Additionally, in 2020, a preregistered study using the Ganzfeld protocol also reported positive results for precognition:
Watt, C., Dawson, E., Tullo, A., Pooley, A., & Rice, H. (2020). Testing precognition and altered state of consciousness with selected participants in the Ganzfeld. Journal of Parapsychology, 84, 21–37.
To me, this strongly reinforces that the phenomenon is genuine.
Given this, I would like to know whether you agree with Edwin C. May’s perspective regarding the possibility that precognition may have a physical basis:
Marwaha, S. B., & May, E. C. (2015). Rethinking extrasensory perception: Towards a multiphasic model of precognition. SAGE Open, January–March, 1–17.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244015576056
I am not a physics specialist, but I am deeply intrigued by how a possible physical signal could travel from the future to the present, assuming the phenomenon truly has a physical nature.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I will be completely honest Lucas in saying that while I am not stupid…I have a Ph.D. in organic chemistry…a detailed and thorough understanding of quantum mechanics is currently out of the range of my knowledge. I suspect that if I applied myself for a number of years I could get to grips with it, but I have no desire to do that. Therefore, while I am aware of their theory, and have tried to read it, I am insufficiently equipped to comment one way or another on its validity, relevance or consequence with regard to explaining the relationship between consciousness and the physical realm. What I do believe, and what I have expressed in my book, that due to the nature of quantum mechanics, the concepts of duality pointing and connection of quantum states etc, I suspect that there is an interaction/relationship/mechanism between quantum mechanics, the physical world and consciousness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I found the study I had mentioned a few days ago regarding near-death experiences (NDEs) and precognition:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1550830724001435
The author is Dr. Marjorie Woollacott, who conducted an in-depth investigation into the NDE of Stephanie Arnold, a woman who suffered an extremely severe uterine complication during the birth of her son.
According to the analyzed account, Stephanie reported precognitive experiences related to the medical event before it occurred. The case is also covered in the Netflix documentary Surviving Death, which includes validation from Dr. Julie Levitt. Furthermore, Woollacott’s article notes that Dr. Lim took Stephanie’s predictions seriously enough to implement additional preventive measures, including enhanced blood bank preparation, due to the concerns raised by her claims.
LikeLike
In the case of Dr. May, who is connected both to the phenomenon described by Stephanie Arnold and to extrasensory perception and precognition, I found a video in which he gives an interview for a YouTube channel. What I find totally intriguing is that Dr. May still hopes the phenomenon can be explained physically. For me, it’s hard to understand how a signal could travel from the future to the present. But he also admits in his articles that, in practice, he has no idea what the transport mechanism for the signal from the future might be. Original YouTube link: https://youtu.be/37tPK3iwcZ4?si=WIlXpTVniCBpTq0W
LikeLike
In the article The Multiphasic Model of Precognition: The Rationale (Sonali Bhatt Marwaha, 2015, Journal of Parapsychology), the authors explicitly acknowledge, on page 8, the profound current limitations in the scientific understanding of the mechanisms of precognition.
They state:
“What We Do Not Know About Informational Psi: One of the biggest problems that psi researchers face is that we do not know when, where, or for how long psi occurs (i.e., we are unable to pin down the speciic moment when RC information is obtained from the external world). Further, we do not know the nature of the RC signal, nor what the information carrier is. We do not know from where the apparent stochastic nature of the RC signals arises. We do not know its genuine transmission rate (bits/symbol). We do not know who has psi ability and why we cannot train for it—although we now have a model (MMPC) that addresses this point and provides testable hy- potheses. Conidence calling is problematic, in that for the most part it appears impossible to determine via some a priori method whether or not a given response is correct. One hint that this problem may be tractable comes from May (2007/2014a), in which he demonstrates 10 correct calls in 12 attempts in a one-in-three setup. We do not see stable CNS correlates. Further, we do not know many other things, such as whether the remote viewer sees actual or probable futures. What about free will? Can we bilk the future? And other such interesting questions that deal with the nature of time and information.”
In other words, the authors themselves admit that, in practice, there is still no concrete, empirically established, or physically understood explanation for the mechanism responsible for precognition. Fundamental questions remain unanswered, including the nature of the alleged informational signal, its means of transmission, its origin, its reliability, its neurophysiological correlates, and even its relationship to concepts such as causality, free will, and the structure of time. This clearly demonstrates that the subject deserves thorough investigation regarding whether there are truly physical bases for the phenomenon.
LikeLike
Hi Lucas There is no way of telling you about this…
I think you would have to have good long exploration of Direct vs Indirect realism, thinking about things like:
-Spinning around for a while, then coming to a halt, and having a perception of the world still spinning
-Same thing with alcohol
-different types optical illusions
2. Perhaps move on to thinking deeply about colour, “Colourful Notions” is a great video from the BBC.
3. There is little option but to get to grips with Quantum Mechanics. Feynman’s New Zealand Lectures are the obvious place to start on Youtube.
-And you really need to understand the double slit experiment – somehow one needs to get to a place where talking about what is going on with the particle, between the particles careful preparation (by the experimenter), and the particles measurement, is nonsensical.
That’s just the start… some people can make it, some can’t… I found it long and difficult…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your response, Max. Indeed, I believe the topic is extremely complex, and unfortunately, I don’t master the subject of physics. Have a good Friday or Saturday, depending on which country you’re in!
LikeLiked by 1 person
In my case, my field is Law — in fact, I’m graduating this semester — which unfortunately doesn’t have much to do with physics 🫣😅.
But I truly understand that this issue is, indeed, quite complex.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Lucus,
Hey well done, I”m a law Gradutare (L,B.B Hon’s). I got an Ho’n’s degeein in Law,
Good luck ok ~ you’ll walk OK it
Paul
LikeLiked by 1 person
Should read LLB,
Doh!!
Pauluie
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good afternoon, Paul!
That’s really great, my friend! It’s clear that Law is also a highly valued and widely pursued field around the world 😆😁.
In my case, I only have Tax Law II, Business Law II, and my thesis left to complete my degree, which will happen this semester.
After that, I plan to take the Brazilian Bar Exam (OAB – Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil) so I can officially practice as a lawyer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well done, Lucas, and good luck.
Paulie
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Lucus,
Law is very boring ~ lets be honest! I wish you all success with the Brazilian Bar Exam. You’ll walk it.
I’m totally off topic now. I just don’t have the tine ~ look up >>Profesior David Wilson<<
Nothing to do with NDE’s but a vety clever man, regarding the law.
Pauliie
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, Orson, from the strictly materialist perspective defended by Dr. Martial, it would be extremely interesting to see her try to explain the phenomenon reported by Pim van Lommel in the study published in The Lancet in 2001 — a classic work, unfortunately dated, but, as far as I can see, still relevant in many of its central questions.
Right on the first page, van Lommel points out that purely physiological factors, such as cerebral anoxia, do not adequately explain the low incidence of near-death experiences (NDEs), observed in only about 18% of patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest.
He states:
“We do not know why so few cardiac patients reported an NDE after CPR, although age is a factor. With a purely physiological explanation, such as cerebral anoxia for the experience, most patients who had been clinically dead should report one.”
Further on, he reinforces:
“Our results show that medical factors cannot explain the occurrence of NDE; although all patients had been clinically dead, most did not have an NDE. Moreover, the severity of the crisis was not related to the occurrence or depth of the experience. If purely physiological factors resulting from cerebral anoxia caused NDE, most of our patients should have had this experience. Patients’ medication was also unrelated to the frequency of NDE. Psychological factors are unlikely to be important, since fear was not associated with NDE.”
And concludes:
“Several theories have been proposed to explain NDE. We have not shown that psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factors caused these experiences after cardiac arrest.”
To illustrate this reasoning, we can use a simple analogy:
Imagine 10 absolutely identical light bulbs — same manufacturer, same model, same physical conditions — being tested simultaneously.
In theory, they should all behave the same: either all light up together, or all fail together.
However, unexpectedly, only 2 light up (20%), while the other 8 remain off (80%).
Faced with this, a logical question arises: if all share identical conditions, what would explain such disparate responses?
Van Lommel’s point follows a similar line: if the basic physiology during clinical death is largely shared, why do only a minority report NDEs?
As he himself suggests:
“Thus, induced experiences are not identical to NDEs, and, besides age, an unknown mechanism seems to trigger NDEs through the stimulation of neurophysiological and neurohumoral processes at a subcellular level in the brain in only a few cases during a critical situation such as clinical death. These processes may also determine whether the experience reaches consciousness and can subsequently be recalled.”
In other words, even within the materialist framework proposed by Martial, the Lancet study acknowledges the existence of as-yet-ununderstood mechanisms, indicating that the classical physiological explanation remains solidly incomplete.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In my case, personally, I would be extremely surprised if individual genetic factors were actually involved in the phenomenon — especially considering that it is universal, yet selective, as someone once mentioned to me. In other words, demographically, the phenomenon is reported across different ethnicities, genders, and cultural contexts, but still occurs only in a specific subset of people. I’m not a doctor or a biologist, so unfortunately I don’t have an in-depth understanding of genetics, but from this perspective, I find myself wondering: how could a selective genetic predisposition explain a phenomenon that is so broadly distributed across such diverse populations? 😬🤔
LikeLiked by 1 person
As usual Lucus, a well thought out and interesting answer.
Rgds Paul
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another analogy I propose is the following: Suppose five completely different people experience the same near-death experience (NDE) phenomenon when their hearts stop. Let us imagine, for example, a Brazilian, an American, a Chinese person, an Angolan, and an Arab going through the same experience, even though they demonstrably do not share significant cultural or genetic similarities. How would it be possible for all of them to manifest the same phenomenon? This is one of the main reasons why, even without being a genetics expert, I find it difficult to accept that the explanation lies in a selective genetic factor — as in the lightbulb analogy. To me, this hypothesis seems insufficient given the universality observed in these accounts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I write about genetic factors in both of my NDE books. I do believe that it is possible that genetics play a factor. I am off to church now, so do not have time to go into it, but will have a crack at it some time later.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Orson,
I do believe that it is possible that genetics play a factor.
Plz explain.
Rgds Paulie
LikeLike
OK, back from church and a long lunch.
I read a book way back in the noughties by Dean Hamer in which he described the “God Gene”. AI overview of the God Gene:
“The “God Gene” theory, proposed by geneticist Dean Hamer in 2004, suggests that human spirituality is partially influenced by a specific gene, VMAT2 (vesicular monoamine transporter 2). This gene is thought to regulate neurotransmitters like serotonin and dopamine, which affect moods, emotions, and the capacity for self-transcendence or mystical experiences.”
I talk about this in my book in terms of this gene (or others) influencing our ability to interact with and perceive the “spiritual realm” that surrounds us. There is some evidence that this may be an inherited gene. Westerners who had certain abilities to interact with this realm were weeded out during the witch hunts of the middle ages. However other cultures often revered people who had these “gifts”. I have noted in my Christian journey that non-whites often seem to be more “spiritual” than whites.
Also it is worth noting that some people are able to remember dreams and others not. The key question is whether the second group don’t remember dreams because they didn’t have them or because for some genetic reason are unable to perceive or remember them. The same could apply to NDEs.
Ultimately everyone has different levels of ability determined by their genes. When it comes to the brain this is most commonly understood in terms of intellectual ability, memory etc…but what if spiritual discernment was one of these abilities? That too may be a result of genetics. However, there is little to no survival advantage from being well-endowed with this gift, if anything the contrary may be the case, hence the decline in spirituality in our world.
All just thoughts of course, with a small bit of evidence to support it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting answer, Orson.
You wrote
>> However, there is little to no survival advantage from being well-endowed with this gift, if anything the contrary may be the case, hence the decline in spirituality in our world<<
This implies to me that it's down to evolution?
Paulie
LikeLike
If there is an evolutionary link, it is more a byproduct of how our societies evolved. If a genetic predisposition to being more spiritual reduced the chance of survival due to persecution in medieval Europe, this is not so much natural selection as societal selection. On the other hand, if being more spiritual makes you more compassionate and less violent, then in ancient prehistoric times it is possible that males who were more spiritual may have had less chance of survival than those who were ruthless and lacked empathy and compassion…again a point I make in my book. That would be natural selection driving a trend towards less spirituality. It is noteworthy that women are generally more spiritual than men (e.g. more likely to go to church), is this because the survival of their genes in pre-history was related to their propensity to nurture children and form bonds with other women rather than defeat enemies physically – the male role?
It is all very speculative and not much real research has been done on this to provide further evidence to shed light on the subject.
LikeLike
Some skeptics suggest that DMT or analogous substances are responsible for inducing near-death experiences (NDEs). In response to this hypothesis, Dr. Edson Amâncio — who advocates for a dualist view of the mind — observes that elderly individuals tend to produce less DMT than young people. This observation raises a relevant logical argument: if DMT were the primary cause of NDEs, why do most young people, who have greater availability of this substance, not report NDEs when they undergo clinical death? (An analogy with light bulbs is appropriate here.)
Furthermore, Dr. Pim van Lommel documents that ketamine — a substance similar to DMT found in medications — is not capable, by itself, of explaining core elements frequently reported in NDEs, such as the panoramic life review. However, the most decisive argument remains the issue of selective incidence: if the neurochemical hypothesis were correct, most young people in clinical death should experience NDEs, which is not confirmed in practice.
Thus, the problem of the low occurrence of NDEs among young people — despite their greater natural production of DMT — constitutes a critical point for the analysis of this strictly neurochemical hypothesis.
LikeLike
Hi Lucus,
In this case, I disagree with you. DMT can produce much the same result, as an NDE. People report much the same experience ie no fear of death etc.
I could likey give the answer to my own question. However. I’ll pass it on to you. I look forward to reading your reply.
All best. Paulie
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul, I found one of the videos in which Dr. Edson Amâncio discusses the DMT question.
He addresses this topic quite clearly, especially starting at the 4:00 mark.
In this case, DMT was one of the major question marks in Dr. Amâncio’s interpretation of NDEs. However, he argues that DMT alone does not explain fundamental elements of these experiences, such as visions of deceased relatives, life reviews, and the profound existential transformations often reported after such episodes. Because of this, he believes that DMT is not sufficient to explain the full complexity of the phenomenon.
Additionally, I also read on a portal that DMT very rarely causes the sensation of a life review, which further reinforces the hypothesis that its effects alone may not encompass all aspects of near-death experiences.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Lucas’
Yes, I agree. But can DMT open the doors a little for NDE’s. Explain to me why pilots have the same experience. Why do people who are drowning go for the same experience? Why do people in shock go through this?
It’s late now, and I need some sleep. I look forward to reading your answer tomorrow.
Rgds Paulie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul, from what I remember of Dr. Pim van Lommel’s article, he also mentions fighter pilot reports when discussing the relationship between perceptions of light and the differences compared to near-death experiences (NDEs).
In the case of fighter pilots, although episodes associated with loss of consciousness and perceptions of lights may occur, they generally do not report life reviews, encounters with deceased relatives, or profound personality transformations — elements frequently described in many NDEs. This distinction suggests important differences between the phenomena.
Regarding the DMT hypothesis:
Unfortunately, I am not a physician, but following a logical line of reasoning based on the interpretation of the article, if the combination of DMT and cerebral anoxia were a sufficient or necessary mechanism for producing NDEs, it would be expected that the majority of young people in similar clinical situations would report this phenomenon more frequently.
Based on this reasoning, I consider it unlikely that DMT alone is a necessary mechanism for explaining the occurrence of NDEs.
LikeLike
Hi Lucus,
DMT might kick in a little. It certainly doesn’t explain an NDE. Don’t dismiss it, though.
Now I’m really off to bed. ZZZZZZZs await
Paulie
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good evening from Brazil, Paul!
Or almost good evening — it’s nearly 6 PM here 😅😆
Unfortunately — and I truly mean unfortunately — I do not remember the exact video in which Dr. Edson Amâncio mentioned this, since it was on a random YouTube channel. I will look for it more carefully later.
However, in Dr. Pim van Lommel’s article, he states the following:
In this case, ketamine is often cited as a substance capable of producing altered states somewhat similar in certain aspects, much like DMT. However, according to Van Lommel, these substances do not adequately reproduce the central elements of NDEs, especially the panoramic life review and the profound psychological transformations.
Ah, I just remembered another detail: research the book by a Mexican author titled DMT: The Spirit Molecule. It was from this work that Dr. Amâncio reportedly drew or reinforced some of these conclusions.
Have an excellent rest of your Saturday!
LikeLiked by 1 person
My God, Paul, forget what I said about the author’s origin 😬😅
He’s from New Mexico, not Mexican.
His name is Rick Strassman, M.D., author of DMT: The Spirit Molecule.
Look him up — I think you’ll really enjoy learning about him! He was one of the first modern researchers to conduct authorized clinical studies with DMT in the United States and brought forward some very interesting discussions about consciousness, mystical experiences, and altered states.
Have a great night!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some time ago, I developed a series of arguments regarding Dr. van Lommel’s conclusions. I sought to be as precise as possible in my analysis.
If there are flaws in the reasoning, I ask that you do not hesitate to criticize them and please let me know:
Argument on the insufficiency of physiological explanations for NDEs:
Syllogism 1: From physiological universality to low incidence
Major premise (scientific):
If a phenomenon is caused exclusively by universal physiological processes (such as cerebral anoxia during cardiac arrest), then it should occur in the majority of individuals subjected to the same physiological conditions.
Minor premise (empirical data):
In van Lommel’s study, only 18% of the 344 resuscitated patients reported any memory of the period of clinical death, and only 12% had a typical NDE.
Logical conclusion:
Therefore, NDEs cannot be explained exclusively by universal physiological processes, since the low incidence contradicts the deductive expectation.
Syllogism 2: From crisis severity to experiential independence
Major premise (causal logic):
If a phenomenon is caused by a physiological factor (e.g., cerebral anoxia), then its occurrence and intensity should vary proportionally to the intensity of that factor.
Minor premise (empirical data):
Van Lommel demonstrated that there is no correlation between the duration of cardiac arrest, the period of unconsciousness, or the severity of anoxia and the occurrence or depth of NDEs.
Logical conclusion:
Therefore, NDEs are not a linear function of the physiological severity of the crisis, which invalidates the hypothesis of direct physiological causality.
Syllogism 3: From fear of death to the distinction between cause and modulation
Major premise (conceptual distinction):
A factor that modulates the intensity of a phenomenon is not necessarily its cause.
Minor premise (empirical data):
Fear prior to cardiac arrest influenced the depth of the NDE (p = 0.045), but not its occurrence. According to van Lommel, most patients do not experience fear because cardiac arrest is sudden.
Logical conclusion:
Thus, fear acts as a modulator, not as a cause. The cause of NDEs remains indeterminate based on the psychological factors evaluated.
Syllogism 4: From the DMT hypothesis to refutation by explanatory insufficiency
Major premise (conditional):
If NDEs were caused by the combination of DMT (more abundant in younger individuals) with cerebral anoxia, then the majority of young resuscitated patients should report them.
Minor premise (empirical data):
The majority of young resuscitated patients did not report NDEs, although the frequency was higher among them (p = 0.012).
Logical conclusion:
Therefore, the DMT + anoxia hypothesis is insufficient, since it does not explain why most young individuals do not experience NDEs despite possessing the supposed necessary conditions.
Syllogism 5: From demographic universality to non-heredity
Major premise (definition):
A hereditary biological phenomenon or a culturally restricted one should show significant variation among ethnic, religious, or national groups.
Minor premise (empirical data):
Van Lommel found no influence of ethnicity, nationality, religion, or educational level on the frequency of NDEs.
Logical conclusion:
Therefore, NDEs are not a biological phenomenon restricted to specific groups, but rather demographically universal — which makes their low incidence even more paradoxical.
Syllogism 6: From the paradox of universality versus incidence to paradigm limitation
Major premise (principle of parsimony):
If a phenomenon is universal (occurring across all cultures, ages, and eras), but affects only a minority of individuals exposed to the same objective conditions, then it cannot be reduced solely to objective physiological variables, since these should produce uniform effects.
Minor premise (empirical data):
NDEs are reported worldwide by people of all ages (although more frequent among the young), beliefs, and backgrounds, but only 10–20% of cardiac arrest survivors report them.
Logical conclusion:
Therefore, NDEs transcend the current physiological paradigm, requiring explanatory models that incorporate the possibility that consciousness may operate partially independently of the brain.
Final syllogism: Conclusive synthesis
Premise 1 (negation of strict physicalism):
If NDEs were purely physiological, they would be frequent, proportional to crisis severity, and explainable by known biological variables — which is not the case.
Premise 2 (negation of restrictive culturalism):
If NDEs were cultural or hereditary, they would display significant demographic variations — which is not the case.
Premise 3 (affirmation of the paradox):
NDEs are universal (demographically) and rare (statistically), creating a paradox unexplained by current models.
Final conclusion:
Therefore, NDEs cannot be satisfactorily explained by current scientific knowledge based exclusively on physiological, biological, or psychological causes. The phenomenon points to the need to expand the concept of consciousness beyond the brain, admitting the possibility of its functioning in states of body-mind dissociation — as van Lommel himself suggests at the conclusion of his article.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think most people here are familiar with Van Lommel’s paper. I talk about it in my book, and the false teeth incident is the first time an verified OBE was reported in a serious journal. However you make great use of the data from it. That is an excellent series of logical constructs that effectively demolishes the physicalist explanation – each one is like a canon ball hitting a wall.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is a portal dedicated to scientific updates — unfortunately available only in Portuguese, although Google Translate can be very helpful — that discusses the relationship between DMT and phenomena such as life review during near-death experiences:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/revistagalileu.globo.com/google/amp/colunistas/the-conversation/coluna/2025/08/estudo-revela-conexao-entre-uso-de-droga-dmt-e-experiencias-de-quase-morte.ghtml
In this case, the conclusion presented is that the substance rarely produces this type of experience. Furthermore, DMT generally induces predominantly psychedelic visions, which differ significantly from the more commonly reported characteristics of NDEs.
LikeLike
Is there an article “Michael, Pascal (2022) A comparison of NN-DMT, changa & 5-MeO-DMT and the near-death experience: qualitative analyses and reviews of the neuroscience. PhD thesis, University of Greenwich,” in which the author thoroughly analyzes whether DMT can simulate the NDE phenomenon.
In this case, the author states that the life review is one of the least common phenomena with DMT, appearing significantly less often than in classic NDEs.
Here are the extracted paragraphs and pages:
—
1. Main paragraph on page 185 (Chapter V)
Page 185:
“Significantly higher for NDEs on the NDE scale, the sense of a ‘life review’ also only occurred in one DMT participant on two occasions (6%) compared to 24% of NDEs in the thematic analysis. This only very conceptual and feeling-oriented DMT report contrasted with the explicit judgement by either oneself or accompanying entities, and one’s life being physically represented in the NDEs (e.g. a film). However, such representation is seen in other changa accounts (Chapter 7) – albeit whose content was in the more idiosyncratic form of ‘code’ (yet, again, such content is comparable to one NDE herein whose life was embodied in some ‘brain-like’ structure).”
Interpretation: The author states that only 6% of the study participants with DMT reported something resembling a life review, while 24% of NDEs presented this characteristic. The author also notes that, even in these rare cases, the content was more conceptual in nature and different from the classic life review of NDEs.
—
2. Paragraph on page 199 (Chapter V)
Page 199:
“Life review-like
The reanimation of experiences or feelings from one’s personal history, a ‘life review’ of sorts, was volunteered in two DMT interviews (6%), however both of which being derived from one person, SP (35-39, M, White British). Here, in his first trip, he offers that:
‘I was seeing faces of loved ones mainly, and feelings for people… this feeling of being aware of my own consciousness, that was the kind of overall- it was about me, and I guess everything that connects through me, or I’m aware of…'”
Interpretation: The author reinforces that only a single participant (SP) reported a life review, and even then, in a way that differed from NDEs (more focused on feelings and awareness of consciousness than on a vivid re-exposure of events).
—
3. Paragraph on page 215 (Chapter V – Summary)
Page 215:
“…it was evident from both those quantitative approaches, especially the thematic analysis, that some features are significantly less inducible by DMT and more endemic to NDEs – encountering the deceased, the life review, and threshold of no return – which could be considered those most emblematic of nearing death (where the threshold feature, of note, scored significantly higher by NDErs in Timmermann et al., 2018 before the conservative Bonferroni correction, and was entirely absent from DMT in the thematic analysis).”
Interpretation: The author lists the life review as one of three features “endemic” to NDEs and “significantly less inducible by DMT.” He suggests that these features are related to the real perception of being close to death, something lacking in the DMT-induced experience.
—
4. Paragraph on page 221 (Chapter V – Discussion)
Page 221:
“…the following: Some features are significantly less inducible by DMT and more endemic to NDEs – encountering the deceased, the life review, and threshold of no return – which could be considered those most emblematic of nearing death…”
Interpretation: Reiteration of the idea that the life review is a signature of genuine NDEs, rarely replicated by DMT.
—
Summary of the Author’s Position:
The author concludes that DMT rarely produces a life review (occurring in only about 6% of cases, generally in a vague or conceptual form). He argues that this occurs because the DMT user is not actually close to death, whereas the NDE is triggered by a real biological threat. This difference is used to support his thesis that DMT is an “imperfect model” or “mimetic” of the NDE, not a complete simulator.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An interesting article on this subject is:
Barker, S. A., Borjigin, J., Lomnicka, I., & Strassman, R. (2013). “Endogenous N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT): A Review of its Biosynthesis, Pharmacology, and Potential Physiological Roles.” Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford, UK).
In this study, the authors present robust evidence that human beings produce DMT endogenously, with the substance having been identified in the bloodstream.
My interpretation of this issue is as follows:
If human beings naturally produce DMT, and Dr. Edson Amâncio reports that elderly individuals produce less DMT than younger individuals, then, in theory, younger people would exhibit higher concentrations of this substance.
Based on the hypothesis that the combination of endogenous DMT and cerebral anoxia would be responsible for the near-death experience (NDE) phenomenon, an important question arises:
Why, then, do the majority of young people not report NDEs during critical situations, considering that, according to Pim van Lommel (The Lancet, 2001), such experiences would be more frequent in younger patients and less common in the elderly?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ty Lucas. Regards Paul.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good afternoon from Brazil, Paul! 😁
This has nothing to do with NDEs, but regarding Dr. David Wilson, I’ve become somewhat familiar with his work, and he truly seems to be an excellent criminologist.
Unfortunately, Brazil has major criminal factions involved in international drug trafficking and various other illicit activities. In the legal sphere, decisions by high courts — especially the Supreme Federal Court (STF) — often generate strong public outrage. A frequently cited example is that of former Justice Marco Aurélio Mello, who, under certain procedural circumstances, ended up authorizing the release of a leader and criminal associated with one of these factions based on alleged “irregularities in the legal process.”
As for the political landscape, the situation is also deeply concerning. Recently, major corruption scandals involving financial institutions and sectors of Brazil’s political elite have come to light. There are also suspicions raised by Federal Police investigations that an STF Justice, Alexandre de Moraes, may be involved in this scandal.
Unfortunately, this context makes the country, in this regard, quite disappointing and lamentable. Despite the existence of laws, their interpretation and application often generate profound frustration among the population.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Lucus,
Professor David Wilson was the best lecturer I’ve ever had. I studied the criminology law module with him. He didn’t mess about and scared everyone, lolz. You can check him out on YouTube. He often ‘pops up’ on UK TV.
I’m linked on Facebook with him. Maybe he’ll read the thread and respond.
I doubt it, but he’ll be a tough cookie to beat, if he does!
Paulie
LikeLiked by 1 person
In my view, even more serious is the situation of having as a national leader someone like Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva — a figure widely associated, by many critics, with major corruption cases investigated by the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office. His release and return to political life occurred after complex legal decisions, including procedural annulments and statute-of-limitations issues, which has generated deep indignation among a significant portion of the Brazilian population. For many, he represents one of the most controversial and damaging political figures in the country’s history, a scenario I consider profoundly regrettable.
LikeLike
In this case, to conclude this conversation — since the topic has nothing to do with the blog — I sincerely apologize for these posts.
The son of Brazil’s current President, Lula, previously worked in the maintenance sector of a zoo (and I would like to make it clear, with full respect, that this is in no way meant to diminish or disrespect professionals in that field).
After Lula first assumed the Presidency in 2003, his son began working in the technology sector, building a company in that area. By the time Lula completed his two presidential terms in 2010, his son had already amassed a fortune reportedly valued in the billions.
Respectfully and frankly, this inevitably raises questions:
How does someone accumulate wealth of that magnitude in such a short period of time, especially as the son of a sitting president?
🤔
LikeLiked by 1 person
No politics please 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sorry, Orson, truly sorry.
I won’t comment on these issues anymore. My apologies.
LikeLike
No worries. I appreciate your passion for these topics…I am actually very political myself – as Ayn Rand said “If you’re not interested in politics, then you’re not interested in freedom” however, politics is very divisive and I want it kept well away from here. Thanks for your understanding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow.
You miss one month on this blog and suddenly there are 130+ comments! Did I miss something groundbreaking? Anything new? ^^
LikeLike
Yes and no. It looks like a new NDE study from Belgium will be presented soon, and Martial has teased us with the prospect of NDEs potentially linked with EEG data and also OBEs. The devil will be in the detail though, as I am pretty certain that the headlines will adopt a physicalist stance.
LikeLike
Hi Lucus,
Here’s what professor David Wilsons toughts are..
>>In summary, there is no evidence in his professional output to suggest that Professor David Wilson believes in life after death; his work focuses on criminology and, in his media, often works to debunk false claims regarding the supernatural<<
I’ll only ask him once. Paulie though FB. He’s a busy man ~ however, if he did hop on, he would have much to add to the blog.
Paul.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good evening from Brazil, Paul! (I believe it must be around 10 PM there in the United Kingdom, if Google isn’t mistaken.)
🤔😅
Regarding Professor Wilson’s skepticism, I believe he will fully understand the issues related to fraud and factual evidence if he seriously investigates NDEs and other correlated phenomena. One example is precisely the phenomenon I mentioned at the beginning of our conversations in this post: the Ganzfeld Effect.
If there is one phenomenon whose validity I am completely convinced of — even in light of more radical interpretations, such as Dr. Edwin May’s, which suggests a physical nature for the phenomenon, though its mechanism remains unknown — it is this one. I place total confidence in this phenomenon, which unfortunately continues to be widely neglected simply because it has historically been associated with parapsychology.
As Jessica Utts and other researchers have pointed out, the effect sizes (ES) observed in certain psi protocols are not only comparable to, but in some cases significantly greater than, those associated with clinically recommended uses of aspirin or propranolol in the prevention of heart disease (Spencer, 1995; Utts, 1991).
This includes the Ganzfeld Effect itself, whose results, according to the evidence, demonstrate statistical magnitudes far beyond chance expectation.
LikeLike
As Jessica Utts has argued regarding the issue of replication:
To address the replication question more explicitly, I presented the following scenario. In December 1987, a study on the effects of aspirin in reducing heart attacks was stopped early because the data had already become overwhelmingly convincing (see, e.g., Greenhouse & Greenhouse, 1988; Rosenthal, 1990a). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: aspirin or placebo. There were 104 heart attacks among the 11,037 participants in the aspirin group, compared with 189 heart attacks among the 11,034 participants in the placebo group (chi-square = 25.01; p < 0.00001).
After presenting the results of this original study, I introduced two hypothetical experiments designed to replicate these findings, as shown in Table 2. I asked audiences to indicate which replication they considered more successful. Most selected the second replication, as most journal editors likely would, because of its “statistically significant p-value.” However, the first replication showed almost exactly the same proportion of heart attacks between groups as the original study and was therefore a much closer replication of the original result. In contrast, the second replication had substantially different proportions; in fact, the relative risk in this second study was not even contained within the 95% confidence interval of the original study’s relative risk. Thus, the effect size was far more consistent in the “non-significant” replication.
Table 1. Replication Attempts by Professor B
N| Number of Successes| One-tailed p-value
10| 4| 0.22
15| 6| 0.15
17| 6| 0.23
25| 8| 0.17
30| 10| 0.20
40| 13| 0.18
18| 7| 0.14
10| 5| 0.08
15| 5| 0.31
20| 7| 0.21
Table 2. Hypothetical Replications of the Aspirin/Heart Attack Study
Replication #1
| Heart Attack| No Heart Attack
Aspirin| 11| 1156
Placebo| 19| 1190
Chi-square = 2.596; p = 0.11
Replication #2
| Heart Attack| No Heart Attack
Aspirin| 20| 2314
Placebo| 48| 2170
Chi-square = 13.206; p = 0.0003367
—
As Etzel Cardeña noted in his 2018 American Psychologist article:
Ganzfeld Database (adapted from Storm et al., 2010b)
Database| k (Trials)| Z| p| Effect Size (TE)| 95% Confidence Interval
Combined (all)| 108| 8.31| < 10⁻¹⁶| 0.142| —
Combined (homogeneous)| 102| 8.13| < 10⁻¹⁶| 0.135| —
New (all)| 30| 6.34| 1.15 × 10⁻¹⁰| 0.152| —
New (homogeneous)| 29| 5.48| 2.13 × 10⁻⁸| 0.142| —
LikeLike
Furthermore, regarding Varvoglis and Bancel’s calculations on the meta-analysis by Bösch, Steinkamp, and Boller (2006) on micro-PK, I understand that Bancel’s paper is mathematically correct.
Upon examining the paper, the authors show that, by chance alone, only 2 studies with Z ≥ 2.6 would be expected — yet 40 studies were observed in that range. Under the null hypothesis of no real micro-PK effect, the Z-scores of independent studies follow a standard normal distribution (mean 0, standard deviation 1). In that case, the probability of a study having Z ≥ 2.6 is approximately 0.00466 (since Z = 2.6 corresponds to p ≈ 0.0047 in a one-tailed test).
Varvoglis and Bancel found that the actual number of studies with Z between 2.6 and 5 (or Z ≥ 2.6) was about 40 — a value 20 times higher than expected by chance. This significant deviation indicates that this is not mere random fluctuation. Even considering the file-drawer effect (publication bias), an unrealistically large number of unpublished null studies would be needed to reduce the 40 observed studies to the mere 2 expected. In other words:
· If only publication bias were at play, the Z-scores of published studies would still be centered around zero (with an elongated tail), but not with such an extreme excess in the Z ≥ 2.6 region.
· To explain the presence of 40 studies with Z ≥ 2.6, the “file drawer” would need to contain thousands of null studies — something the authors consider implausible.
In summary, the statistics demonstrate that the phenomenon occurs, and that the 2006 meta-analysis proves this, as shown by Bancel.
LikeLike
5 minutes in in. Paulie
LikeLike
@ Lucus, Watch the whole thing if you have an hour on board. No promises at all. But I’ll see if I can get David on the blog. TBH, it’s unlikely as he is a very busy man,
I’ll ask, though. If he did, he’ll right shake it up!
Paulie
LikeLike
Here Lucs. Here.
https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tTP1TdIKarIyDVg9BIrKMpPSy0uzi9SSEksy0xRKM_MKc7PAwDVeQyK&q=professor+david+wilson&rlz=1CAMJNG_enGB1131&oq=&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgAEC4YJxjqAjIJCAAQLhgnGOoCMgkIARAjGCcY6gIyCQgCECMYJxjqAjIJCAMQIxgnGOoCMgkIBBAjGCcY6gIyCQgFECMYJxjqAjIJCAYQIxgnG
LikeLike