Feelings vs facts and truth
I read this in an article today and felt sympathy for the judge after my own recent experience of writing on this blog:
“What the judgment effectively said is that feelings are not facts; there is only ever one version of the truth – the one that can be proved, with evidence.”
This related to the court case in which Prince Harry, a somewhat emotional chap, and a bunch of other celebs tried to sue the Daily Mail for illegally obtaining information about them. The facts did not support their claim, and the judge threw it out. Virtually all the facts were human testimony. The volume and credibility of this human testimony made them facts in the eyes of the judge. This kind of evidence is empirical evidence. Post modern relativism likes to promote the idea of “lived truth” but in the end there is only one truth, ever, even when insufficient facts are available to prove it, that truth still exists but we just don’t know it is true for sure. Truth vs false is binary…always.
It got me thinking about the reaction to recent posts that I have created here, and I think feelings have clouded people’s view of what I am doing. I am seeking truth on this subject, nothing else. I have beliefs based on evidence, but if the evidence points without doubt to a truth that is different from what I believe, then my beliefs will crumble. So far in my life the evidence has pointed mostly one way – but enough of my beliefs.
Historically this blog has focused very much on factual evidence. As an important reminder, here is the sum of factual evidence regarding the 2 competing hypotheses that attempt explain NDEs – the “Dualism” hypothesis that NDEs are the result of the consciousness or soul separating from the physical body when the heart stops beating and the brain stops functioning; and the “Physicalism” hypothesis – that the brain generates the experience.
After 50 years of research these are the facts about the evidence:
1. Evidence supporting Dualism:
There is significant, if not overwhelming empirical evidence to support the hypothesis.
- This evidence is comprised almost exclusively of reports by experiencers that they were able to observe events or objects that it would have been impossible to observe given the state of clinical death or post CA unconsciousness that they were in. Many of these people were reliable witnesses, otherwise ordinary citizens from all walks of life.
- There are many hundreds of these reports that have been verified by Healthcare professionals, including field leading physicians, who had nothing to gain, and sometimes much to lose, by publicly supporting these claims. Over 120 of these have been rigorously researched and documented in the excellent book by Titus Rivas, The Self Does Not Die.
- 2 of these verified OBEs occurred in prospective research studies that were published in peer reviewed journals and therefore were subject to scrutiny from scientists.
2. Evidence against the Dualistic hypothesis:
None. There is no evidence that directly challenges this explanation. There have been some attempts to debunk a few of the more famous reports, but by and large these attempts were themselves debunked.
The sum of the factual evidence supporting the dualist hypothesis is significant. To say otherwise requires believing that hundreds of highly intelligent, generally sceptical and deeply ethical healthcare professionals were either duped by very sick patients or were lying.
3. Evidence for the physicalist hypothesis:
- Reports of brain activity in rats for up to 30 seconds into CA;
- reports of brain activity in suffocating coma patients but not during CA;
- reports of brain activity in patients who are in CA but undergoing CPR in AWARE II, but these patients did not report NDEs (2 who had EEG activity were interviewed but had no recollections)
- And most recently it appears that Fritz and Martial have collected EEG data consistent with conscious activity from patients undergoing CPR who reported NDEs. A publication is expected in the coming weeks or months that will provide more detail.
- Disruption of normal brain activity through various means e.g. psychedelic drugs, epilepsy, meditation techniques etc – produce experiences that measure greater than 7 on the Greyson scale and thereby might be regarded as analogous to NDEs and demonstrate the theoretical possibility that NDEs are induced by brain activity.
4. Evidence against the physicalist hypothesis
If you disregard the evidence for dualism, then you can argue there is no evidence against the physicalist hypothesis.
On first viewing you have 2 hypotheses that both have evidence supporting them with little to no evidence against them. However when it comes to weight of evidence there is a very significant difference, and this relates to the specificity of the evidence.
When it comes to OBEs, the primary objectively measurable piece of evidence supporting dualism, there is no possible alternative explanation for a verified OBE other than that the consciousness was able to observe itself from outside the body (this is supported by cases in which the attending physicians specifically stated that patients eyes were closed the whole time – or even taped closed, or that there was no heartbeat at the time of the reported observation as in AWARE I). This, combined with the sheer number of high quality verified accounts makes this evidence overwhelming in nature.
What about the physicalist evidence. It is all circumstantial and suffers from the fundamental scientific principle that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. While it is plausible to say that this EEG activity may be causing the NDEs, it is equally plausible to say that the EEG activity is caused by the NDEs...namely the disinhibition theory of Parnia’s. More likely it is caused by sufficient oxygenated blood from CPR causing the brain to start “rebooting” (the 2 cases from AWARE II support this explanation). NDEs and EEG activity may sometimes be associated when CPR is applied, but causality is not elucidated by this data. Moreover, what about NDEs that occur outside of a hospital before CPR is applied?
As for the analogous experiences, while Martial claims to show significant similarity between drug induced NDEs (or other “natural” causes) other researchers, including Parnia, Greyson and Van Lommel have all shown that these experiences are very different. Furthermore, while there are reports of OBE-like experiences, these are actually just visual distortions and there have been no validated OBEs from these experiences, supporting the idea that these particular experiences are indeed merely the result of disrupted brain activity.
In summary it is factually true to say that you have very strong empirical evidence supporting dualism, with no evidence against it, and weak circumstantial evidence supporting physicalism, also with no evidence against it.
It is also factually correct to state that for millennia human beings believed in some form of dualism. This is not strong evidence, but it is no less strong than the assertion by scientists that there is always a natural explanation for every observation. Both are beliefs based on worldview and lead to bias when interpreting results (I try my hardest to suppress this bias, but it is almost impossible).
As far as my bias allows me to see, the facts of the matter are that an objective analysis of evidence points to the sum of evidence strongly favouring the dualistic explanation.
So far so good…and most who come here accept this statement. There is no real emotion at play here. Feelings are not especially disturbed by this, unless you are a fanatical physicalist who is so wedded to their ideological position that it is a fundamental affront to their core identity.
Where feelings have become inflamed is when I have discussed the implications of the above truth…namely what come out of the understanding that because the evidence supports NDEs being real, by implication, the subjective elements of NDEs must therefore also be regarded as authentic accounts of what people experienced, and to an extent “real”, especially when these people describe these experiences as feeling more real than our existence here. This inevitably leads us into philosophical or religious territory especially when despite retaining certain core elements, the subjective accounts differ in so many ways. I would argue that again I am only discussing empirical evidence or facts but even the discussion of this has caused a significant amount of negative mail in my inbox, including one person suggesting that I had somehow lost the plot! I can assure everyone here that my beliefs and interpretation of the implications of NDEs has barely changed at all since starting this blog. Yes, my understanding has evolved, especially on simulation theory, but the central beliefs haven’t. That aside, as a result of the negative response, I have tried to separate the purely objective discussions around emerging NDE research, from the subjective interpretation of that.
But is that the right thing to do?
Let’s analyze the recent topic that has caused the latest tranche of negative mail…the subjects of Hellish NDEs and simulation theory. Despite what people may “feel”, in all of this I have been discussing facts (reports of experiences are facts) and trying to understand what truth we can learn – the truth in this case is the answer to the question “Does Hell exist?”. Some people are so offended by the idea, that they allow their emotions to flare up and blind their ability to reason (I believe this is what lies behind Parnia’s drive to exclude these experiences from analysis). It is a legitimate question though, and of existential importance to answer. I believe I know the answer, but I cannot provide proof to state with certainty it is true, but I believe that the evidence supports that position (if not I would not believe it). In fact, despite the newspaper story headlines of previous posts, I do not state that the evidence proves anything, but rather that it points to certain possibilities. They fail to report on the other possibilities that I discuss in my book.
So let’s look at the facts on both these subjects as they are of fundamental importance to humanity, and therefore, whether or not they stir up emotions, they must be discussed, and we must try our hardest to elucidate the truth to help guide us.
On “Hell”:
Facts providing supporting evidence for its existence:
Fact 1: Hellish experiences are reported as part of the subjective element of NDEs. The reports are less common than positive experiences, ranging from about 5-20%.
Fact 2: Despite the 2022 consensus paper’s assertion that these experiences are not authentic NDEs (in that they meet the defining criteria of a Greyson scale), they are because they do. [they do not meet the new RED criteria though because these criteria discount these experiences by default…a huge logical fallacy]. This is proven by the fact that the citation the consensus paper uses to underpin this position (Cassol, Memory 2019) actually says the opposite of what the paper claims it says. Specifically it states that other than positive feelings, negative NDEs share all of the other traits of authentic NDEs, and are otherwise identical in phenomenology.
Fact 3: Virtually every dualist religion that has ever existed describes Hell-like states being a consequence of actions or decisions in this life.
Facts providing supporting evidence against its existence:
Given that CPR induced consciousness, which is often traumatic, is very different in its phenomenology to NDEs, I will discount this and so there is no evidence against its existence. None. Only emotions. Only feelings. Only a strong desire for it not to exist.
Therefore applying logical reasoning it is correct to state that there is more evidence that Hell exists than that it doesn’t. The quality of the evidence is less strong than the evidence that supports the reality of OBEs or NDEs because it is based on subjective unverifiable accounts, and religious teachings. This means that is reasonable to be skeptical about its existence, but it is also reasonable to believe in it, and those who react with blind emotion to this discussion are not doing anyone any favors. In fact they are inhibiting humanity from exploring what must be one of the most important subjects that exists.
I will not drag this on any more, nor will I visit the other discussions from my book that drew the interest of the Daily Mail, namely those around whether more people might have Hellish experiences than is reported due to dissociative amnesia or the concept of death of the soul. Nor will I enter the religious understandings of how to avoid this state, but I must be absolutely clear…the discussion of whether Hell exists or not belongs outside of the religious discussion due to the empirical evidence for its existence (eye witness accounts from living people who had NDEs).
What about simulation theory?
Again this drew quite a bit of negative response, but it is a legitimate question that many ask, and has been a question that has existed for decades since we understood the potential for AI etc. I am not going to go over the discussion in detail as I did this a few posts back, but there is evidence from NDEs that the life we experience in this dimension shares parallels to what we understand simulations to be in a broad sense. Therefore it is not unreasonable to believe that this existence is a simulation. It is also reasonable to believe that it is not a simulation, although any evidence that people might produce to say this isn’t a simulation could be shot down with the answer that the designer of the simulator put it there to fool us into believing this is reality!
There are other facts that support the idea this is a simulation. The existence or emergence of life, the universe and consciousness defy the laws of nature and science that govern the very same universe. It is a paradox that points to the Universe’s existence being a fabrication or illusion. Chemistry and quantum mechanics point to the illusory nature of matter and even time.
Do these facts prove we are living in a simulation? No, but again that makes it is reasonable to believe that such an understanding might be true.
Beyond that any discussion on the originator of the simulation and its purpose are purely speculative and philosophical/religious in nature. But some people think that the very discussion of the subject of life being a simulation is offensive or philosophical. It is not. It is a legitimate question raised due to the evidence from NDEs, the subject of this blog.
Anyway, I hope this has clarified things a bit. My posting on these subjects is not out of a desire to “preach my version of what I believe the truth to be”, but rather it is an attempt to arrive at baseline “likely” truths supported by available evidence. These are:
- It is rational to believe that a Hell-like state exists beyond this dimension. It is less rational to not believe this.
- It is rational to believe we live in something akin to a simulation. It is equally rational to believe we aren’t.
- It is irrational, and a position based on subjective emotions to say that positions 1 and 2 are irrational!!
So to all you Prince Harry’s, please stop your emotions from ruling you.
What great timing for this post. I was in another rut (similar to my first comment last month), and it’s like this was made for me. I have a background in philosophy (just a BA) and dualism has always interested me…the good ol’ “I think therefore I am” from Cartesian dualism was my first introduction way back when. It’s grounded my beliefs in rational, logical arguments. Of course, in philosophy, for an argument to be considered valid there will always be counters. But I am more compelled by the “pro” dualism arguments. It appears more and more scientists nowadays are opening their minds to dualism as well, at least I hope.
I certainly have a strong faith in God. I struggle with faith in the afterlife. As I’ve mentioned, your blog has always been a great source of comfort for me. Not emotionally, but logically. It matters to me to inform my beliefs based on logic (again…philosophy), so this post is exactly what I needed to read. That my beliefs are logical. So, big thank you for this. I also believe God gives us signs and nudges when we need it most, so big thank you to Him for this perfect timing!
Glad to be have been a conduit of God’s timing 🙂
God works in mysterious ways!
Good article
Islamic culture also has a form of simulation theory—specifically, that of Ibn ‘Arabi. His mystical philosophy of the “Unity of Being” explains the famous hadith of the Prophet Muhammad in which God says: “I was a hidden treasure, and I loved to be known; so I created the world that I might be known.” Jesus also plays a very important role for him. Meister Eckhart held similar views. I like your perspective and am glad I am not alone in my convictions.
Skip to contentNews-MedicalMenu
25
Scientists discover molecular mechanism behind anesthesia-induced unconsciousness
Download PDF Copy
Add News Medical on Google
as a preferred source
Weill Cornell Medicine
Jul 9 2026
Reviewed
Researchers at Weill Cornell Medicine and Birkbeck, University of London, have identified a site where a commonly used anesthetic binds to sodium ion channels, revealing a molecular mechanism that may explain how these drugs dampen communication between neurons. Ion channels are proteins that regulate the flow of charged particles across cell membranes, enabling neurons to generate electrical signals. By reducing this signaling, inhaled anesthetics help suppress brain activity, producing unconsciousness and immobility during surgery.
The findings, published June 19 in Nature Communications, shed light on a longstanding mystery: For 175 years, doctors have safely used inhaled anesthetics to render patients unconscious, but didn’t fully understand how these drugs work.
“Sodium channels are critical for communication between neurons in the brain, and anesthesia breaks down that communication,” said Dr. Hugh Hemmings, senior associate dean for research and chair of the Department of Anesthesiology at Weill Cornell, who co-led the research. “So, there’s good reason to believe that the unconsciousness produced by volatile anesthetics is related to their effects on sodium channels.”
The study provides the first atomic-level view of how the anesthetic sevoflurane binds to sodium channels and stabilizes them in an inactive state.
The insights we gain from this study may enable us to design safer, more selective anesthetics, with fewer side effects.”
Dr. Karl Herold, co-first author and senior research associate, Weill Cornell Medicine
Anesthetizing a bacterial counterpart
As far back as the 1970s, scientists suspected that inhaled, volatile anesthetics could interact with ion channels-in particular, the voltage-gated sodium channels that play a crucial role in cell-to-cell communication throughout the nervous system. But determining how this interaction inhibits neuronal activity has been challenging because mammalian sodium channels were too large and complex for detailed structural analysis.
The researchers turned to a marine bacterium, Magnetococcus marinus, that uses voltage-gated sodium channels to swim toward nutrients and oxygen. Although structurally simpler than their mammalian counterparts, the bacterial channels operate similarly and share the same sensitivity to anesthetics. “Volatile anesthetics bind through weak, low-affinity interactions that are very hard to capture structurally,” Dr. Herold said. “A bacterial channel that behaves like ours but is small enough to crystallize lets us finally see where sevoflurane sits and how it holds the channel inactive.”
Discovering a binding pocket
The Weill Cornell team joined forces with Birkbeck researchers, co-senior author Dr. Bonnie Ann Wallace and co-first author David Hollingworth. The UK-based researchers have extensive expertise in structural analysis of these bacterial channels bound to a variety of drugs, including those that affect neuronal activity.
We recommend
See Access and Coverage Support for an Opioid Use Disorder Treatment.
Sponsored Ad by Braeburn Inc.
View an FDA-Approved OUD Treatment Option for Your Patients’ Needs. Visit the HCP Site.
Sponsored Ad by Braeburn Inc.
Discover the Science Behind BRIXADI® (buprenorphine) Extended-Release Inj for SC Use and How It May Help Your Patients. See PI With BOXED WARNING.
Sponsored Ad by Braeburn Inc.
Physicians: Explore Dosing That May Be an Option for Your Patients With OUD.
Sponsored Ad by Braeburn Inc.
Powered by
What are the challenges of cell line development? eBook Sphere Bio exposes the challenges of cell line development processes, and suggests how to overcome them. Download the latest edition
Using high-resolution X-ray crystallography, the researchers captured detailed snapshots of sevoflurane bound to the channel. They discovered that the anesthetic tucks into a small pocket at the edge of the channel’s pore-forming region, but away from the pathway through which sodium ions flow. Binding in this pocket stabilizes the channel in an inactive state, making it less likely to open and allow sodium ions through, thereby reducing a neuron’s ability to transmit electrical signals.
That interaction appears to be key to the drug’s molecular effects. When the researchers altered a single amino acid in the binding pocket, sevoflurane could no longer bind effectively and lost its ability to keep the channel in its inactivated state.
The researchers are now working on translating their findings to the mammalian system. “The bacterial channel is just a testing ground,” Dr. Hemmings explained. “If naturally occurring mutations affecting anesthetic binding exist in humans, studying them could help explain why some people respond differently to anesthesia and may provide new insights into the biology of consciousness.”
“As anesthesiologists, it’s our responsibility to understand how these drugs work, so we can resolve issues when people don’t react well to anesthesia,” said Dr. Hemmings, who is also anesthesiologist-in-chief at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center.
Source:
Weill Cornell Medicine
Journal reference:
Hollingworth, D., et al. (2026). Volatile anaesthetics modulate voltage-gated sodium channel function at a site directly linked to channel gating. Nature Communications. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-026-74518-7. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-74518-7
Currently rated 4.5 by 25 people
Posted in: Medical Procedure News | Medical Science News | Medical Research News
Comments (0)
Download PDF Copy
We recommend
See Access and Coverage Support for an Opioid Use Disorder Treatment.
Sponsored Ad by Braeburn Inc.
View an FDA-Approved OUD Treatment Option for Your Patients’ Needs. Visit the HCP Site.
Sponsored Ad by Braeburn Inc.
Efficacy and Safety of Elranatamab in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A US Subgroup Analysis From MagnetisMM-3
Brought to you by Pfizer Medical Affairs, EM-USA-elr-0215
Discover the Science Behind BRIXADI® (buprenorphine) Extended-Release Inj for SC Use and How It May Help Your Patients. See PI With BOXED WARNING.
Sponsored Ad by Braeburn Inc.
Physicians: Explore Dosing That May Be an Option for Your Patients With OUD.
Sponsored Ad by Braeburn Inc.
Understanding OUD Patient Profiles: Learn How This Treatment May Support Your Patients’ Goals.
Sponsored Ad by Braeburn Inc.
Powered by
Suggested Reading
New stem cell approach targets functional cure for diabetes
New stem cell approach targets functional cure for diabetes
Stem cell-derived dopaminergic cell transplantation shows encouraging results for Parkinson’s disease
Stem cell-derived dopaminergic cell transplantation shows encouraging results for Parkinson’s disease
Study reveals how glial cells regulate brain injury and recovery
Study reveals how glial cells regulate brain injury and recovery
New gene therapy strategy uses the brain’s own glymphatic transport system for drug delivery
New gene therapy strategy uses the brain’s own glymphatic transport system for drug delivery
Setmelanotide shows promise for hypothalamic obesity after brain tumors
Setmelanotide shows promise for hypothalamic obesity after brain tumors
Study advances understanding of mixed protein pathologies in dementia
Study advances understanding of mixed protein pathologies in dementia
Study shows how brain activity reflects dramatic social relationships
Study shows how brain activity reflects dramatic social relationships
Study reveals complex relationship between alcohol and Alzheimer’s disease
Study reveals complex relationship between alcohol and Alzheimer’s disease
Comments
The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.
Post a new comment
Login
Quirky Comment Title
Quirky Comment Title (optional)
Post
Trending
Stories
Latest
Interviews
Top Health
Articles
New drug candidate treats severe fatty liver disease by improving gut health
New drug candidate treats severe fatty liver disease by improving gut health
Scientists discover molecular mechanism behind anesthesia-induced unconsciousness
Scientists discover molecular mechanism behind anesthesia-induced unconsciousness
Yeast food supplement helps immune cells fight cancer more effectively
Yeast food supplement helps immune cells fight cancer more effectively
Study explores the relationship between heart issues and cognitive function
Study explores the relationship between heart issues and cognitive function
Researchers identify key protein balancing gut immunity and inflammation
Researchers identify key protein balancing gut immunity and inflammation
Latest News
One Health platform strengthens zoonotic disease surveillance across multiple domains
One Health platform strengthens zoonotic disease surveillance across multiple domains
EGFR inhibitors may overcome chemotherapy resistance in glioblastoma treatment
EGFR inhibitors may overcome chemotherapy resistance in glioblastoma treatment
Gum disease bacteria linked to calcific aortic valve stenosis
Gum disease bacteria linked to calcific aortic valve stenosis
Global study reveals country-specific patterns in dementia risk factors
Global study reveals country-specific patterns in dementia risk factors
New benchmark shows AI still misses the human side of mental health care
New benchmark shows AI still misses the human side of mental health care
Newsletters you may be interested in
NutritionNutrition
(Subscribe or Preview)
Medical DeviceMedical Device
(Subscribe or Preview)
ADD/ADHDADD/ADHD
(Subscribe or Preview)
See all Newsletters »
NewsGuard NewsGuard 100/100 Score
High Credibility: This website adheres to all nine standards of credibility and transparency.
PIF TICK logo with the words Trusted Information Creator and Patient Information Forum. There is a blue rectangular border with a big green tick. TRUSTe Cyber Essentials Plus
Medical Links
Medical Home
Functional Food
News
Health A-Z
White Papers
Thought Leaders
Insights
MediKnowledge Series
Health & Personal Care
Medical Devices
Drugs
eBooks
Posters
Podcasts
Videos
Life Sciences Links
Life Sciences Home
News
Lab Instruments & Equipment
Life Sciences A-Z
White Papers
Thought Leaders
Insights
Webinars
eBooks
Posters
Podcasts
Videos
Other Useful Links
About
Meet the Team
Search
Newsletters
Sitemap
Advertise
Contact
Terms & Conditions
Privacy & Cookie Policy
Content Policy
Ownership & Funding Information
Other AZoNetwork Sites
AZoM
AZoNano
AZoCleantech
AZoOptics
AZoRobotics
AZoSensors
AZoMining
AZoQuantum
AZoBuild
AZoLifeSciences
AZoAi
News-Medical
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
News-Medical.Net provides this medical information service in accordance with these terms and conditions. Please note that medical information found on this website is designed to support, not to replace the relationship between patient and physician/doctor and the medical advice they may provide.
Update Your Privacy Preferences
Last Updated: Sunday 12 Jul 2026
AZoNetwork
News-Medical.net – An AZoNetwork Site
Owned and operated by AZoNetwork, © 2000-2026
Azthena chat logo
Can you elaborate on why you wanted to share this article? Seems it’s talking about how anesthesia works. I’m not sure how it connects to NDEs and was curious if you could fill me in or correct my misunderstanding. Thanks!
There are theories that if anesthesia can knock out consciousness then it must be brain based. However the work of Sam Parnia, Bruce Greyson and Stuart Hammeroff suggest otherwise. Check out the Al Sullivan NDE case and Pam Reynolds NDE case too
Ah. What are your thoughts or rebuttals to that?
I think it’s clear consciousness and the brain are linked in some way. I would expect them to be, as even dualism would have to answer there being a way for a material substance (brain) and immaterial substance (mind) to interact. I know some people believe the brain to be a receiver or filter for the mind. I’m not sure what I think on that front.
Paul’s comment made me look into some things, and I stumbled across idealism. My “one-day study” of this indicates it’s the belief that all there is, is consciousness. Reality IS spiritual/mental/however you want to call it. I recall hearing about this in my metaphysics class, actually. It reminds me of Berkeley’s philosophy that the material world doesn’t exist at all. Very interesting philosophy, and I’d love to hear if anyone one this forum has any background in it/opinions on it/can relate it back to NDEs/REDs. I feel like it relates to the simulation theory brought up in Dr. Wedgwood’s original post.
I talk about it a bit in my book. It is an intriguing idea, but completely untestable and unprovable…bit like the multiverse theory.
Or there is my third option, where experience is a shared construction. (As neither 1). dualism, nor 2). materialism, fit the evidence IMO).
Where the veridical NDE OBE emerges from third parties experience, which is anomalously accessed by experients, and they only experience their sense-of-self as being located outside of the body, they are not literally outside their body.
Geoff Penington’s 2019 work suggests a solution, if brains really do contain structures that can provide sufficient isolation, to allow matching patterns to connect different spacetimes.
Brief and very inaccurate discussion with Grok – but might help flesh out some things: https://x.com/i/grok/share/59a330ab1b694f21b2ccbe4d91274cb1
Hi Dr. Wedgwood,
Thank you for maintaining this space to discuss resuscitation science. As someone who deeply appreciates your medical science background, I wanted to ask how you reconcile a specific clinical detail regarding Dr. Parnia’s AWARE studies, which form the backbone of this blog.
You’ve noted that the clinical data strongly supports objective dualism. However, during the AWARE and AWARE II studies, researchers placed hidden visual targets near the ceilings of cardiac arrest rooms to definitively test if patients literally leave their physical bodies. Out of thousands of cases, not a single patient claiming an OBE has ever successfully identified these targets.
As a scientist, how do you explain a 0% clinical success rate on the only controlled, prospective test designed to verify physical separation?
Furthermore, it seems we have a double standard of evidence here: physicalist hypotheses (like those raised by Bruce Greyson regarding deeper brain regions temporarily functioning) are dismissed on this blog as entirely impossible due to a lack of direct evidence. Yet, dualism is accepted as ‘overwhelmingly proven’ based almost entirely on retrospective, unverified anecdotal accounts. Why does physicalism require 100% airtight clinical proof, while dualism is permitted to rely on subjective hearsay?
I ask this in the spirit of the ‘informed and polite exchange’ you champion here, and I look forward to your scientific perspective on this.
Kind regards.
I hope this information is accurate, and I can be corrected if not: OBEs are very rare. At least in the case of AWARE II, there were only two OBE cases and both occurred in rooms without the targets planted. I believe these were corroborated by others (medical staff) present in the room.
Not sure which study, but there was one OBE that had an audio target hit. I’m sure Dr. Wedgwood can better expand on this, but hopefully this can at least give you the beginnings of an answer to your question.
You just beat me to it! But yes, you are right.
Hi Kevin and welcome to the discussion.
Good questions, that have been answered before.
The first is the easiest to answer. In AWARE I there were only 2 OBEs reported, and neither occurred in rooms with target objects/drawings/pictures. In AWARE II no one had a classic OBE. Both of these studies from low numbers of patients surviving to the interview stage (about 100 in AWARE I and 30 in AWARE II). Give that only 10% of people have NDEs, and about 20% of those have OBEs, you would predict 2.6 OBEs from both of these studies. We got two, and neither in rooms with targets.
On your second point, I never say that alternative physicalist hypotheses are entirely impossible, I just state that there is not much evidence to support these hypotheses, and the only real evidence that does exist – EEG in people in CA during CPR – could be explained due to a number of different causes. It could be consciousness producing NDEs, or it could be the consciousness leaving the brain or it could be that CPR is producing enough oxygenated blood to cause the brain to start “rebooting” (my preferred explanation).
What I do say is that the balance of evidence strongly favors the dualism hypothesis, and in fact, unless you are prepared to dismiss the validation of 100s of OBE accounts by qualified HCPs as erroneous or deliberately fabricated, then you are forced to conclude that OBEs, and by extrapolation, NDEs, are proven true.
Thanks for the welcome and for taking the time to reply. I appreciate the statistical breakdown on the AWARE studies. You make a totally fair mathematical point that with such a small sample size of actual OBEs, the target test was statistically underpowered.
That said, showing that a test was underpowered isn’t positive proof of your own hypothesis. If we’re going to have the “informed and polite exchange” you champion here, we need to look at some pretty massive logical contradictions in how you’re framing this.
First, your reply presents a major false dichotomy,
“unless you are prepared to dismiss the validation of 100s of OBE accounts by qualified HCPs as erroneous or deliberately fabricated, then you are forced to conclude that OBEs, and by extrapolation, NDEs, are proven true.”
There is a very obvious third option here that doesn’t require calling anyone a liar or incompetent: honest but reconstructed memories. During cardiac arrest, the brain is undergoing extreme hypoxia, chemical surges, and trauma. When a patient is resuscitated and the brain begins “rebooting” (to use your preferred term), they are in a highly suggestible state.
It’s a well-documented psychological fact that the human brain can retroactively, and entirely unconsciously, stitch together auditory cues heard while semi-conscious, expectations of what a resuscitation room looks like, and details discussed by staff after they wake up. The patient and the doctors are reporting what they genuinely believe to be a true memory, but the memory itself is a post-hoc cognitive reconstruction, not a literal soul leaving the body.
Secondly, there’s a glaring double standard in how you evaluate physiological data depending on which argument you’re trying to win.
In your response to me, you said your preferred explanation for EEG activity during cardiac arrest is that “CPR is producing enough oxygenated blood to cause the brain to start ‘rebooting’.”
Yet, when Paolo asked about the possibility of deeper subcortical brain regions functioning during cardiac arrest, you dismissed the idea out of hand, writing: “It’s not possible without sufficient blood flow. End of.”
This is a direct contradiction. You can’t logically invoke CPR-induced blood flow to explain away EEG data as a physicalist “reboot” when it suits you, but then flatly deny that very same CPR-induced blood flow is capable of keeping deeper, highly resilient brain structures online when someone else brings it up. If CPR is producing enough oxygenated blood to reboot the brain, it is absolutely biologically plausible that it’s keeping localized subcortical regions active.
Finally, you didn’t actually answer my question about the double standard of evidence on this blog. You just evaded it by doubling down on the validity of subjective, retrospective accounts.
This evasion is especially wild given your blog post from July 12, where you quoted a judge stating: “What the judgment effectively said is that feelings are not facts; there is only ever one version of the truth—the one that can be proved, with evidence.” In that post, you criticized postmodern relativism and the concept of “lived truth,” arguing that we must rely strictly on objective, empirical evidence.
Yet, your entire case for dualism relies on treating the “lived truth” and subjective feelings of NDE patients as objective, scientific facts. If we are to apply your own stated standard—that feelings are not facts, and the only truth is the one that can be proved with prospective evidence—then we cannot accept unverified, retrospective anecdotes as scientific proof of physical separation.
You are demanding 100% airtight prospective proof to even consider physicalist hypotheses, while allowing your preferred dualist hypothesis to bypass the scientific method entirely based on subjective hearsay.
Until a patient actually identifies a hidden target under controlled, prospective conditions, dualism remains a philosophical and theological belief, not a scientifically proven fact.
You are being very personal, verging on insulting me by accusing me of double standards. This is feeling more and more like an ad hominem attack than a genuine discussion about the data. Moreover your tone is pretty arrogant and condescending if I am honest. But I will continue to engage for the moment.
“There is a very obvious third option here that doesn’t require calling anyone a liar or incompetent: honest but reconstructed memories.”
Nope. Don’t you think that was already considered? In many, if not most of these cases the HCPs concluded that the observation was not possible by natural means. For example you can’t reconstruct a memory of a serial number, or the date on a coin etc.
“Yet, your entire case for dualism relies on treating the “lived truth” and subjective feelings of NDE patients as objective, scientific facts. If we are to apply your own stated standard—that feelings are not facts, and the only truth is the one that can be proved with prospective evidence—then we cannot accept unverified, retrospective anecdotes as scientific proof of physical separation.”
You are completely misrepresenting what I said. I say that hundreds of OBEs verified by HCPs (not lived truth or subjective feelings) are empirical evidence of separation, indeed I would argue they are proof. I am very specific in this and state in numerous places that this is not scientific evidence.
As for what you say about my comments to Paolo, I have no idea where these are, but let me repeat as you seem to have missed it. I completely accept that CPR induced blood flow could produce consciousness -wherever in the brain it is generated – and that therefore this could be cited as evidence for NDEs originating in the brain, but the same evidence…i.e. EEG activity during CPR, could be associated with other processes.
Finally, improve your tone or it’s goodbye.
Hi Kevin,
I was reading your exchange with Orson and was wondering if you could hint me towards the studies suggesting one could either be reconstructing memories from unconsciously registered stimuli or be prone to suggestion post-resuscitation (or the studies on which we can form these hypothesis). As for consciousness, I highly suggest reading Erik Hoel’s blog if you aren’t already. I am not even sure we could verify anything conclusively with our current methods and tools in terms of consciousness. I’m also pretty sure even a positive hit would be dismissed because of that, especially if it’s fruits like I think I’ve read it was. If you try digits, you run into the problem that the average recall of random digits that aren’t rehearsed fall to pretty much zero after 5 minutes in normal conditions. And we are not even talking about attention and saliency yet. It seems very complex to find a good setup that would be relevant and convince most. Anyways, I I think i’m a bit like you, hard to convince without stellar data and protocols. I’m however getting to the realization that this level of proof is rarely met in science experiments in general.
Check out Dr. Bruce Greyson book After. Its a good read. Also check out the research of parapsychologist Loyd Auerbach. He has a youtube channel and website at http://www.loydauerbach.com
Hi Orson,
Thank you for taking the time to reply again. I want to reassure you that my previous comments were not intended as personal attacks, nor am I attempting an ad hominem. Pointing out logical inconsistencies or conflicting statements is a standard part of any rigorous academic debate; my focus is entirely on the structure of the argument itself, not your character.
Regarding memory reconstruction, you note that one cannot reconstruct a memory of a serial number or a date on a coin. I completely agree. However, where are the peer-reviewed, prospectively verified clinical studies documenting a flatlined patient successfully doing this? These highly specific details typically appear in retrospective, anecdotal accounts recorded well after the fact, which are highly susceptible to sensory leakage, suggestibility, and post-hoc information sharing. If there are actual prospectively verified cases of this occurring under controlled clinical conditions, please share the citations—I would genuinely love to read them.
This leads directly to the core point of my last comment, which was left unaddressed: the double standard regarding your own stated rules of evidence.
In your reply, you did not address your July 12 blog post, where you criticized postmodern relativism and “lived truth,” arguing that feelings are not facts and we must rely strictly on objective, empirical evidence. When I pointed out the contradiction in your standards, you replied:
“You are completely misrepresenting what I said. I say that hundreds of OBEs verified by HCPs (not lived truth or subjective feelings) are empirical evidence of separation, indeed I would argue they are proof. I am very specific in this and state in numerous places that this is not scientific evidence.”
With respect, this distinction does not logically hold up. There is no coherent category of “empirical proof of physical separation” that simultaneously fails to qualify as “scientific evidence.”
If an HCP (Healthcare Professional) “verifies” a patient’s retrospective account of what happened while they were unconscious, that verification itself is still based on subjective, post-hoc testimony. It lacks the controlled, prospective conditions required to rule out sensory leakage, normal psychological suggestion, or memory reconstruction. By definition, if an observation lacks those rigorous scientific controls, it cannot logically be claimed as “proof” of something as profound as dualism. Calling it “proof” while admitting it isn’t “scientific evidence” is simply redefining what “proof” means to bypass the scientific method.
Finally, regarding your comments to Paolo, you mentioned you have “no idea where these are.” To clarify, when Paolo previously asked on this blog about the possibility of deeper subcortical brain regions functioning during cardiac arrest, you dismissed the idea by writing: “It’s not possible without sufficient blood flow. End of.”
While you bypassed that direct quote in your reply, you did write to me:
“I completely accept that CPR induced blood flow could produce consciousness… and that therefore this could be cited as evidence for NDEs originating in the brain…”
This is a helpful clarification, but it is a significant shift from your absolute “End of” stance to Paolo. If you now concede that CPR-induced blood flow can indeed support consciousness, then a physicalist explanation for these experiences is biologically plausible. This directly undermines your earlier assertion that we are “forced to conclude” dualism is true.
I hope we can continue to focus strictly on the data, these specific quotes, and these logical frameworks.
Hi Kevin,
I can appreciate that you are attempting to set a tone of respectful discourse. However, when you say things like, “While you bypassed that direct quote in your reply, you did write to me:” it gives the impression you are trying to catch Dr. Wedgwood in some kind of avoidance or foolishness, at least to me. I think this is what is making your comments seem disingenuous, although I understand that is not your intention.
You have mentioned/quoted Dr. Wedgwood’s treatment of EEG data in CPR, when, in the post we are commenting on, he said, “While it is plausible to say that this EEG activity may be causing the NDEs, it is equally plausible to say that the EEG activity is caused by the NDEs.”
I would think this indicates his stance hasn’t changed. While on this topic, when Dr. Wedgwood indicated he was unsure where that quote to Paolo was coming from, I’m sure he understands they are on this blog. He was referencing being unsure what specific post on this blog. As for me, it’s impossible to further gauge his stance on the quote you gave without further context. Perhaps he and Paolo have talked at length before? Perhaps they are acquaintances? I really can’t tell based on the short quote. So, I don’t think it’s fair to say he’s shifting his stance or “now” conceding.
Specifically regarding your points about what qualifies as evidence, I can’t claim I’m particularly qualified for answering. As a layperson, I would stand to reason that anecdotes are generally recorded as scientific evidence (I.e. self reports used in the field of psychology, at the least, are used for data). But I can understand the hesitancy here. The claims for NDEs should have a higher standard of evidence to back them up.
There have been NDEs peer-reviewed. Dr. Pim van Lommel wrote about one particular case in The Lancet, for example. There are other documented cases that occurred during a flatline EEG. All these cases have been corroborated, and some have been compiled into papers published in peer reviewed journals. However, I feel these will still miss the mark for what you’re asking (a correlation of NDEs with objective data). The best I can say in that regard is: that is why we are continuing to study this phenomenon. I think it’s still relatively in its early stages, in terms of science exploration. Please remember the primary goal of AWARE is not to prove NDEs, it’s to improve resuscitation practices.
With AWARE, there hasn’t been any OBE hits yet, and Dr. Wedgwood illustrated why. There was an auditory hit, but I agree that isn’t as compelling as a visual hit would be. With EEG data, at the very least, there were patients with EEG data that did NOT have an NDE. So while yes, it could be used to explain them, I feel like we have an abundance of evidence of patients with EEGs who do not have an NDE. So correlation/causation seems low…but again I’m a layperson!
And finally:
I would think the “evidence” distinction Dr. Wedgwood is making is that:
Empirical evidence- observations
Scientific evidence- observations in a controlled setting
For example, would someone argue that much of history has no evidence? No proof? Sure, it’s not observations made from a controlled setting, but we have various pieces of evidence that prove certain historical events. Does that make sense? I’m genuinely asking, I’m no expert here and I could be way out of my lane.
I don’t mean to speak on anyone’s behalf, so I apologize if I misrepresented someone. This is how I’ve understood this conversation so far.
Hi Mak,
Thank you so much for stepping into the conversation with such a thoughtful, measured, and respectful perspective. I genuinely appreciate your constructive tone, and I think your comments actually help clarify the exact scientific boundaries we are trying to navigate here.
You made a few highly candid points that I think get straight to the heart of the matter:
You quite rightly noted that existing retrospective papers (like Dr. Pim van Lommel’s) ‘miss the mark’ regarding the objective, controlled prospective data I am asking for, and you confirmed that the AWARE studies have indeed yielded zero prospective visual OBE hits. This is precisely my central point: when we apply rigorous scientific controls to eliminate sensory leakage or post-hoc memory reconstruction, the ‘separation’ hypothesis has yet to yield a single verified positive result.
I appreciate the comparison to history, but there is a fundamental difference. Historical claims rely on physical artifacts, geological footprints, and independent, cross-corroborated records of past events. An OBE, however, is a claim about a present-day physical capability—specifically, that a human consciousness can leave a physical body and read a physical target (like a hidden image or a serial number) without using physical eyes. Because this is a testable, real-time physical claim, it falls strictly under the domain of the natural sciences and requires controlled, prospective verification to be claimed as empirical “proof.”
Regarding Dr. Wedgwood’s previous stance, the contradiction I highlighted is a straightforward logical one. To Paolo, he asserted that deeper brain activity during cardiac arrest is ‘not possible without sufficient blood flow. End of.’ Yet, in his reply to me, he conceded that ‘CPR-induced blood flow could produce consciousness.’
If we accept that CPR-induced blood flow can support consciousness, then any NDE reported during active resuscitation has a viable, biologically plausible physicalist explanation. We are no longer ‘forced’ to conclude dualism is true.
I am incredibly grateful for your input, Mak! Engaging with these distinctions with someone who is willing to look at the structure of the argument so clearly is highly refreshing.
Thanks Mak, well put.
Maybe you should look into the definition of empirical.
Also, I get the feeling I am arguing with AI generated comments. I am not going to repeat myself, what I said previously answers your questions, if you don’t understand that, then there is no point in further discussion.
Hi Dr. Wedgwood,
I can assure you there’s a real, living human behind these comments, just someone who values clear logic and has followed your work closely. If my replies have felt a bit structured, it’s only because I wanted to show your ideas the respect of a rigorous, clear discussion rather than a casual chat.
Regarding the term “empirical,” the definition is precisely why I brought up the AWARE studies. Empiricism relies on systematic, controlled observation. A prospective test (like a hidden target) is the very definition of an empirical control designed to verify an out-of-body claim. Without it, we are relying on retrospective testimony, which, while fascinating, doesn’t carry the same empirical weight.
I completely understand if you’d prefer to wrap up the discussion here. Thank you for your time, and thank you to Mak and Davide for a very engaging and memorable exchange!
I’m very sorry but you are wrong. From Brittanica, but any dictionary would say the same:
‘empirical evidence, information gathered directly or indirectly through observation or experimentation that may be used to confirm or disconfirm a scientific theory or to help justify, or establish as reasonable, a person’s belief in a given proposition. A belief may be said to be justified if there is sufficient evidence to make holding the belief reasonable.’
I am very clear in my books and on this blog on the distinction between scientific evidence – evidence gathered using the scientific method which requires devising experiments to test a hypothesis, and either disproving the hypothesis, or allowing it to be true, which then requires peer review scrutiny to become established theory – and empirical evidence which has a broader definition and can include verified observations, e.g. when validated by attending HCPs, (especially in a prospective research study of which there are 2 cases). Empirical evidence can include retrospective anecdotal case reports if they are in a medical setting and validated by healthcare professionals. One or two would be insufficient empirical evidence to determine a position, but we have hundreds of documented OBEs validated by an HCP which is a very different matter. This is why I state (many times) we have no scientific evidence yet to prove OBEs are real, but in my “subjective” view, or belief, we have sufficient empirical evidence.
In essence all scientific evidence is empirical evidence, but not all empirical evidence is scientific.
OK, I’m going to eat a bit of humble pie here and apologize to Kevin…having really examined the full meaning of the word empirical in detail rather than taking a superficial view, especially in a scientific and research context, I concede that retrospective anecdotal individual cases, even verified by a healthcare professional, are at best weak “empirical” evidence in the strict use of the word, and would be regarded by most as not empirical.
The two cases in the prospective studies, one in the Van Lommel study, and especially the one in the AWARE study probably do meet the definition of empirical evidence because these OBEs were one of the elements of NDEs the studies were seeking to understand under prospective controlled conditions. They failed to reach the bar of scientific evidence because the events occurred outside the specific sub-analysis within the study that were designed to objectively test the validity of OBEs (this was not the primary goal of the study). However, the subject who reported the validated OBE in AWARE was a part of the wider study and was enrolled and processed according to the predefined protocol, and thereby showed the reproducibility of the OBE phenomenon as reported in these other retrospective anecdotal cases. I would argue that this meets the strict definition of empirical evidence, but because it is only one case, it is weak evidence. The Van Lommel NDE does too but isn’t quite so rigorous in my view.
Having just checked, in my NDE book I didn’t use the word empirical, but in my Jesus book I did use it…going to have change that now!
Having said this, while the hundreds of OBEs validated by doctors, many of which contain details that defy any natural explanation except the doctors and/or the patients were lying or duped, may not meet the strictest definition of empirical evidence, in totality they represent extremely strong evidence – for instance if it was in a court of law, it would be overwhelming evidence. As such, while I will no longer use the word empirical for technical linguistic reasons, nothing else has changed and I will still say that for me this evidence is sufficient to prove dualism…i.e. in my subjective view, it proves dualism. I do accept, as I always have, that dualism has not been scientifically proven, but neither has it been scientifically disproven. There is still much more evidence for dualism that there is for physicalism.
Hi Dr. Wedgwood!
You mentioned the two prospective study that included 2 OBEs. Are these both in the book “The Self Does Not Die”? I’d love to read more about them. I tried to check IANDS but I’m not very savvy with their website.
Thank you!
The 2 OBEs from prospective studies are in my books…they would be my first choice 🙂 I think at least Pim Van Lommel’s false teeth OBE is in the self does not die…can’t remember though.
However, just to be clear, neither of these constitute scientific evidence (although Parnia’s believes his AWARE I does). The experiment designed to test the hypothesis of external conscious awareness failed due to “lack of opportunity” as Kevin said…no one saw the targets because the OBEs happened in rooms with no targets and no OBEs were reported in rooms with targets. The AWARE OBE was unique though in that the events and person the patient described entering the room while observing from above, occurred during a time with no recorded heartbeat…it was a timestamped OBE with no heartbeat, although CPR was being performed. If the experiment had been designed like Charlotte Martial’s then it would have been a hit and provide scientific evidence. Scientific proof would need a few of these cases, ideally from different studies.
Hi again Kevin,
I am replying on my phone, so it won’t let me directly respond to your comment. Sorry!
When you say, “when we apply rigorous scientific controls to eliminate sensory leakage or post-hoc memory reconstruction, the ‘separation’ hypothesis has yet to yield a single verified positive result.” I feel like the implication is that the OBEs are unsuccessful in a way of “no one is catching the visual targets.” Apologies if that isn’t what you intended to imply. However, at least in the AWARE studies, the two OBEs didn’t happen in the room with the visual targets. So the nature of their lack-of-success is that they literally weren’t in the room. Not that they had them in the room and missed it.
I’m not aware of an OBE happening in a room with pre-set visual targets in scientific study and still failing to locate them. I could be wrong. They (researchers? are attempting that currently. Unfortunately, it’s tricky…death isn’t very cooperative in its timing haha! It’s not like the doctors involved will say “hey…let’s move the patient to room 10B with the visual targets before we apply CPR.”
Dr. Martial’s recent study, also discussed on this blog, is similar to AWARE but has unpublished results. I’m interested to see their findings, but alas…it’s a waiting game. There’s also various “issues” with that way Dr. Martial is doing things, but we will see.
You mentioned historical claims are cross-corroborated. I think that’s the point that’s being made here about NDEs- the distinction in evidence Dr. Wedgwood has made. So I think you are actually both agreeing on the distinction.
You don’t feel the present “evidence” is sufficient/in the right category to prove NDEs (from what I gather) and I think that’s a fair response. This is why I mentioned the current research regarding NDEs will fall short of your definition. Eventually, as these pursuits continue, we will get more conclusive answers. Personally, I disagree that OBE evidence has to only fall under natural sciences, since, if they are true, they are “beyond the scope” of natural sciences. Yes, data can be collected in a scientific manner, but due to this I accept the corroborated accounts as evidence as well. Just a different type, like Dr. Wedgwood’s musing. However, I understand that is not something you’d agree with (if I am understanding correctly). To PROVE something is also incredibly difficult, even in terms of science.
If you could please provide further context on the “end of” quote, I feel I could better comment on it. But I’m reserving my comments for now. The only thing I’ll mention again is his quote from this blog post (the one I mentioned last comment) doesn’t seem to be in conflict with his later comment to you.
One thing I just feel the need to randomly make a note of, even if CPR can induce consciousness, I think it’ll be difficult to correlate it to NDEs until we can sufficiently “timestamp” an NDE. I’m not sure how that can even happen…but it’s possible for NDEs to occurred during flatline EEGs, as shown in the past (basing this on OBE accounts that were corroborating and timestamps while the patient had a flatline EEG, which…I know you might not find compelling. Unfortunately, that’s all I have to offer!). There’s a lot of room for improvement in this field, but it is definitely still growing. EEGs are weird…there’s even been high EEGs activity correlated with sedation from propofol, when you wouldn’t think there would be such high brain activity! This paragraph was definitely a side note, I’m not disagreeing that EEG activity *could* indicate physicalism. Just expanding on some related ideas.
I’d agree we aren’t necessarily forced to reject physicalism, if it were that easy there would be no further debate on the matter. I would just say that dualism shouldn’t be as quickly rejected as it seems to be. Science isn’t about proving your stance, it’s about finding answers. I think people in general are too close minded.
Hi Mak,
No worries at all about replying from your phone! I completely understand how tedious formatting can be on a mobile screen, so I really appreciate you taking the time to write out such a detailed and thoughtful response.
To address your points:
Regarding the visual targets in the AWARE study, That is a very fair distinction to make. If the cardiac arrests did not physically occur in the specific rooms fitted with the randomized targets, then it is indeed a case of “no opportunity” rather than “opportunity missed”. It will certainly be interesting to see what Dr. Martial’s upcoming findings bring to the table, and I agree that patience is the name of the game when waiting for peer-reviewed data.
I also appreciate your candor regarding the limitations of the current scientific data and your willingness to accept corroborated accounts as a different class of evidence. While we might view the epistemological weight of those personal accounts differently, I completely respect your position and your openness to discussing where the boundaries of the natural sciences lie.
As requested, I went back to find the exact context of the “end of” statement so we can look at it together. It comes from Dr. Wedgwood’s exchange with Paolo on March 28th 2024 in the comments section of awareofaware’s “Contacting me directly” section:
awareofaware.co/welcome/contact-me/
When discussing whether any brain activity could persist during a flatline EEG in cardiac arrest, Paolo asked:
“Dear Ben Williams,
Thanks for your reply, what I was referring to was about the possibility of other parts of the brain stepping up and taking on those functions of the cortex when it is gone (deeper part of the brainstem, or cerebellum)? And if not them, maybe other nerves we have in the body can somehow take on those functions? The huge nerve complexes in the abdomen?
I heard this in an interview with Bruce Greyson, world’s top NDE researcher, who said this mechanism was plausible, but that there is no evidence it can happen. But if it’s possible (and it hasn’t been disproved yet), than this opens up the possibility of consciousness during survivors of cardiac arrest to be explained within a physicalist framework…right??
Thank you and Kind Regards, Paolo”
To which Dr. Wedgwood responded directly:
“It’s not possible without sufficient blood flow. End of.”
The reason I highlighted this contradiction isn’t to play “gotcha” or nitpick a single sentence, but rather to understand the core logic of the arguments being presented on the blog. It seems we are being presented with two mutually exclusive premises:
Premise A: Deep brain activity during cardiac arrest is strictly impossible without normal, sufficient physiological blood flow (“end of”).
Premise B: Under physicalism, NDEs can be explained because highly compromised, manual CPR-induced blood flow is sufficient to generate a highly structured, vivid, and complex conscious experience.
If the physiological limit in Premise A is an absolute rule, it becomes difficult to argue Premise B without a fundamental logical contradiction. If CPR can provide enough blood flow to generate highly complex consciousness, then the absolute limit in Premise A cannot be true. If Premise A is true, then manual CPR could never support a conscious experience.
I would genuinely love to hear how you square those two concepts within the blog’s framework! Thanks again for such an engaging, high-level, and civil discussion.
Hi Kevin,
I’m under the impression Dr. Wedgwood’s “end of” comment is referencing the idea of deep brain activity specifically. In that, other parts of the brain cannot “take over” if there isn’t sufficient blood flow at all in the body, like the brain stem.
In his original reply to you, Dr. Wedgwood said, “ I completely accept that CPR induced blood flow could produce consciousness -wherever in the brain it is generated – and that therefore this could be cited as evidence for NDEs originating in the brain, but the same evidence…i.e. EEG activity during CPR, could be associated with other processes.”
It seems to me that he is specifically using EEGs as evidence of CPR induced consciousness, which…I think EEGs really measure the cortex, not the brain stem (which is what the deep brain activity would be referencing in the original comment). I think he’s using EEGs as evidence since he said “the same evidence…i.e. EEG activity during CPR.”
So perhaps the issue would lie in Premise A including “deep brain activity.” Unless physicalism could show consciousness is located in deep brain activity. When viewing it this way, I feel both premises can reconciled. I also feel like Dr. Wedgwood would say, at the most, EEG data can be correlated to NDEs, but I don’t think he’s of the belief they cause them. Hence all can’s/could’s/maybe’s and no “definitively do cause” statements.
All this to say, we could be arguing a moot point because I don’t know the science of deep brain activity during CPR. I also don’t want to make any claims that I’m accurately representing Dr. Wedgwood, just explaining how I interpreted those comments.
It’s a been quite a long time since I’ve flexed my logic skills, but I think we would definitely need to change the phrasing of these Premises to make a more accurate representation of his views. At a very basic, I predict his logic is more:
Premise A: the brain stem and cerebellum cannot take on the role of the cortex without sufficient blood flow.
Premise B: it is possible that NDEs are a result of CPR-induced consciousness.
I could be way off base, it has been a long time since I’ve taken any philosophy courses, especially logic (which…I struggled so much with logic formulas…so many P’s and Q’s). Could also be a case of “it’s been over two years, his philosophies can change.” I definitely am of the belief no one should be married to an idea.
No wonder I couldn’t remember it, it was 18 months ago and a one sentence throw away. (A bit rude of me to Paolo)
I concede that your point stands and I hadn’t thought through things sufficiently.
If high quality CPR is applied to an extent that it provides blood flow of oxygenated blood similar to normal conditions, then of course it is possible that it may produce consciousness, no matter where that process occurs. There is an horrendous incident where a man had a CA during an operation, but because of immediate or existing (can’t remember which) artificial supply of oxygenated blood he remained fully conscious as the team tried to restart his heart. They couldn’t, and they had to let him die…traumatic for all involved.
However, perhaps the reason why I was a bit dismissive is the fact that syncope occurs when the heart beat falls below 30 bpm. Consciousness is no longer sustainable and the brain is left to focus on maintaining vitals. Brain activity still occurs but it is not able to sustain conscious awareness…CPR rarely ever produces a flow of blood equivalent to 30 bpm.
Again, we’ll put. You captured the nuance of the situation that I try to articulate in my post well.
Good evening Kevin, (for me it is evening!)
Since I am not a doctor, I won’t get into the specifics of EEGs, blood flow, etc.
I would just like to point out that, even though they are the most studied, NDEs do not only occur after cardiac arrest, but also after brain trauma, near-drownings, surgical operations, and even during meditative states…
And they all share more or less the same phenomenology.
Perhaps the truth is that we basically believe we know a lot about how the brain, the mind, and the very nature surrounding us work, but in reality, we know very little…
But that is just my opinion.
I apologize for my English, I used a translator!”
Hey Kevin,
Before you go, be careful with your wording. You replied to Dr. Wedgwood and said “Without it, we are relying on retrospective testimony, which, while fascinating, doesn’t carry the same empirical weight.”
The same empirical weight? Doesn’t that imply it would have at least some empirical weight, to a degree? 😉
I’m just nitpicking and joking around in good faith now, as I know your comments were in good faith and you are simply a truth-seeker. Continue seeking truth, as will I, and let’s pray from some great advancements of research in this field! I think we can both agree that this area of neuroscience is extremely intriguing, and I can’t wait to learn more about our weird, wrinkly brains (and minds)!
Penny Sartori, Paul Badham & Peter Fenwick, A Prospectively Studied Near-Death Experience with Corroborated Out-of-Body Perceptions and Unexplained Healing, 25 J. Near-Death Stud. 69 (2006).
Does this not count as a third verified OBE occurring in prospective research study published in peer reviewed journal?
Close call. I wouldn’t want to hang my hat on that one. The false teeth and AWARE I are stronger. The fact he didn’t die doesn’t help either. But it is very close. I’m sure it’s authentic, and a genuine OBE, just not the best example of one.