AwareofAware

Guardian Podcast with Parnia

Thanks Dylan for being first off the mark to notice this, much appreciated.

I’ve now had a chance to listen this, and I would say it is possibly his best interview yet, so really recommend listening.

He clearly articulates his position on a number of different issues that we have discussed numerous times. He also asserts the fact we have been unable to understand consciousness from a scientific perspective, and that this entity is most likely separate and persists beyond death.

The skill with which he is able to articulate this in a manner that is digestible to the scientific community is outstanding. Despite the background “spook” Halloween music which could have undermined the credibility of what he was saying, he comes across as well balanced and engaged in genuine unbiased research to enhance our understanding of this topic. There are a couple of points that irk me, and one howler, but I’ve spent a lot of time already on them so won’t go there again for now.

The Guardian is a very skeptical newspaper so it is good for this to have appeared there.

Sam Parnia’s position in his own words:

Thank you Thomas for finding this. It is well worth a listen for all those who follow this blog and the AWARE studies. All the key positions are covered in the interview, and most importantly Parnia puts himself in the camp of scientists who believe that the brain hosts consciousness rather produces consciousness. Here is the link where you can find the 25 min audio clip:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/2018908278/dr-sam-parnia-life-death-and-in-between

In general it was a really good interview. He comes across as extremely rational, thoughtful and balanced. I really liked his in depth explanation of the issues around medium term cellular viability, reperfusion injury and how the latter might be prevented. This is a big deal in the CPR world.

However, there are some positions he takes that I just cannot agree with, and that is not because I am experiencing cognitive dissonance (his explanation for people being unable to understand the idea of dualism when their minds are grounded in materialism). For me it is lack of evidence, or even evidence to the contrary that causes me to disagree with him on a few points, but also agree on others:

On prevalence of NDEs:

On remembering NDEs: he uses a “lunch” analogy and everyone remembers that they had lunch a week ago but don’t always remember what they had. Might be a useful analogy, but in his case not helpful to his position that most people have NDEs but can’t remember them. This analogy would suggest that if you had an NDE, you might not remember the details (although people tend to) but you would remember that you had an NDE. I use this in my book when discussing the issue of only 10% of elderly adults having recall.

On prevalence of lucid experiences:

He also says that he has evidence which suggests that many, if not all, are having lucid experiences during CPR. Unless he has something that he hasn’t presented, he does not have evidence to suggest this at all. He just has EEG signals not associated with anything other than performing CPR. Specifically he says:

“Conclusively, 40% of EEG changed to near normal up to 1 hour after”.

Firstly, 40% is not most people, but even the 40% is a bit of a stretch. This is taken directly from the AWARE II paper:

Importantly, near-normal/physiological EEG consistent with consciousness also emerged: delta, theta activity in 22% and 12% respectively (up to CPR 60 minutes), alpha 6% of data/images (up to CPR 35 minutes) and beta 1% (Fig. 2B).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2023.109903

If you add them all up they come to 40%, but delta and theta are associated with deep (dreamless) sleep or drowsiness, only alpha and beta are regarded as being associated with being awake or conscious, so at a push you might be able to say that only 7% had EEG that might be indicative of consciousness. (Mery, or Tim…pretty please…comment here). I am not an expert on EEG, but that is my understanding using this article as a source.

Link to an article on EEG and consciousness

I get why Sam is doing this, but I am not completely certain about it being 100% accurate. He is implying that nearly everyone has conscious activity during CPR. That is, putting it as politely as I can and given the data from his paper, not aligned with the facts.

RED vs NDE:

He says this distinction is important to differentiate experiences. Won’t go there, but I still prefer NDE.

On the process of dying

He describes it in terms of a process, a grey area, rather than binary dead vs alive. In physiological terms, I would agree…the grey area is between the definition of medical death (absence of vitals signs) and irreversible death (the legal definition and the source of a rather horrid falling out with Tim). Given the enduring viability of brain cells, the body is not permanently dead, but in terms of consciousness, it may be different, and that is where his hypothesis about disinhibition is interesting.

On his disinhibition discussions around 22:20

He says they have uncovered the mechanism that explains what may be going. Flatlining of the brain removes braking systems, people then get access to dormant parts of their brain and are able to access new dimensions of reality. This is a real experience that emerges with death.

If your brain has stopped working, how can you access dormant parts of it? Despite the wobbly rationale deployed, I like the disinhibition idea, and that the tethering normally holding the consciousness to the brain, is being released, but I think he needs to be lighter on the details as he has no real evidence for anything more than something may be going on. However, he has to build a bridge for materialists to walk over, and using the terms he does may achieve this.

Bad NDEs

He dismisses horrible NDEs as not being NDEs again, and attributes them to waking up in the ICU. This is contrary to the evidence provided in papers on negative NDEs. Been discussed before, so won’t go there again.

Overall a really good interview, that puts beyond any doubt his position on dualism, but I wish he would stick to what the evidence specifically allows for, rather than speculating way beyond those boundaries. That would be boring though and not be good entertainment, or newsworthy.

Brain Disinhibition Hypothesis

More from the Parnia lab. They have posted a graphic of their hypothesis on Instagram.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Parnia Lab (@nyugsom_ccrs)

I like that they use the word “possible” in front of marker. I don’t like that they have 85 patients had EEG data with 20% of survivors having REDs right beneath it. For those who haven’t been following this or read the wording under fig 2 in the paper, the assumption will be that there is EEG data for this 20%. There is none.

Anyway, I have said enough about of what I think of this in previous posts, so won’t repeat that here. This is a very neutral hypothesis. It is an interesting idea. I do hope they are continuing with the study. The website implies they are.

A Cunning Plan?

I am not in anyway comparing Dr Parnia to Baldrick, but I do wonder if he has a cunning plan.

Ten days ago the media became aware that the AWARE II study had been published. I summarised some of the responses in this post:

https://awareofaware.co/2023/09/15/news-about-aware-ii-publication-and-a-comment-about-news/

The fact was that the AWARE II study was first published in July, and I covered the main details, including the EEG data, which was not associated with any recalled experiences, in this post:

https://awareofaware.co/2023/07/11/aware-ii-final-publication-speculation-does-not-imply-association/

It seemed that some interpreted the study in a way that suggested EEG data showed the brain was producing the NDEs, and this was in part due to the somewhat illusive way in which Sam Parnia discusses that data. In written publications his inference points towards these markers of consciousness being indicative of brain activity associated with NDEs. This lead some articles, such as the Scientific American piece, to suggest that the brain was producing the NDEs:

https://awareofaware.co/2023/09/19/i-avoid-swearing-on-this-blog-but-wtf/

You can’t blame them really as is it not very clear what Parnia is inferring. Then, a few days ago, the lab posted a reel on Instagram that made their position absolutely clear, and which I covered in this post:

https://awareofaware.co/2023/09/20/clarification-of-the-speculation/

In this reel (also available on their YouTube channel) he specifically states that they were able to show the mechanism by which disinhibition occurs:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CxdjYcApTRB/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

The study was able to show for the first time electrical markers of these lucid hyper conscious real experiences. We were also able to show for the first time, the mechanism by which this experience occurs, which is that as the brain shuts down the normal braking systems that hold it down. This is known as disinhibition.

This, combined with the video describing this in more detail which specifically states that the consiousnesss is not anhilated at death, and the response to Thomas’ question, discussed in my previous post, causes us to conclude that the Parnia lab is claiming that their data shows that the EEG spikes are related to this event, and are markers of the consciousness accessing these states, and possibly leaving the body. The “packing its bags and leaving” hypothesis. This is despite the paper stating that there was no EEG data for patients who had REDs.

That is where we are, and I am wondering if it is all part of “a cunning plan”. Maybe the Parnia lab, realising the materialists would cite the EEG spikes as evidence of the brain causing NDEs, created their own theory as to why we see these spikes occur. Why not? If the materialists conflate data and get it published, why can’t we?

I have huge concerns about this. Dr Parnia says that he will create another video that goes into this mechanism in more detail. It is possible that he may relate it to some of the data obtained from research into psychedelics. Whether he does or not, he must have more evidence than he has currently published that specifically associates these EEG spikes with REDs or he is, in my opinion, and with all due respect, in danger of looking a teeny tiny bit like Baldrick.

I have been covering Dr Parnia’s work for over a decade now, and have enormous respect for him and his colleagues, but that would be severely undermined if he used EEG data from patients who never reported any recollections (most likely because they sadly died) as evidence that supports this mechanism. It is absolutely fine to suggest it as a hypothesis which must be proven in bigger studies, but to actually say that it “shows” something is going on is a step too far. It quite simply doesn’t unless he shows new data. I don’t want people to pile in here, as I said I like Dr Parnia a lot, but what he says must be consistent with the published or presented evidence or his work is no more credible than the various studies I have discussed here in which scientists state that a bit of EEG activity in rats or coma patients around the time of CA proves NDEs are the result of brain activity.

In summary, given the data we have been provided with it is impossible to draw any conclusions about the nature of what, if anything, is going on with the patients who had EEG spikes. End of.

Off the Fence? Maybe.

Thomas is smashing it this week. He sent a message via Instagram asking the Parnia lab at NYU about their position on the cause of NDEs after a new reel was posted.

I won’t go into the whole issue of evidence on this for the moment, especially given Sam Parnia mentioned mechanistic evidence, I am just really glad that they made this clarification on their position. It is important to note they use the word “may”, and that is entirely the correct position to take given what we know about the study. I am very interested that they are going to explain their hypothesis soon.

Thanks Thomas and thanks Dr Parnia and the NYU lab for your continuing work in this field. Here is a link to the reel:

Parnia discussing their hypothesis

I will be creating a post over the weekend summarising what we have learned since the AWARE II study caught the attention of the media last week, what the absolute position is given the published evidence, my speculation on why things have been so “nuanced” (to put it politely) and thoughts about their approach to discussing this hypothesis.

Clarification of the speculation

Thanks Thomas for spotting this so quickly and it seems to be the basis of the Scientific American article as the wording is very similar.

We now have a very clear idea of their thinking. As Mery and Z pointed out, it is in line with what Parnia has said before – namely that the EEG activity they are seeing during CPR may be caused by the brain accessing memories and “different dimensions”, which is certainly thought provoking, but without any evidential basis (unless there is data they have not yet published).

The reason it is without basis, as I have repeatedly said, is because not one the NDE/REDs in the paper had EEG data, let alone EEG activity associated with them. They are speculating on data from the patients who were either not interviewed, or had no recollections. How can they say that the EEG data is associated with the brain accessing stored memories when there is no reported life review with associated EEG data (note, this may not be memories stored in the brain)?

Moreover, as Mery has said in the comments in my previous post, and we have discussed before, the nature of the EEG data does not really support the hypothesis that this activity during CPR could be indicative of consciousness level activity anyway. It is more likely similar to the noise the engine makes when you try to start a car on a cold morning but it doesn’t actually start. There is blood going to the brain, but not enough for it really fire up.

However, and much to my relief, at least the speculation by Parnia et al is still clearly along the lines of a dualist interpretation of what is going on, and that the consciousness persists after death of the physical body. This would contradict any speculation by the materialists that the EEG activity data is the brain causing the experience. Indeed that may be the purpose of all of this, and has been thrown out there by the Parnia lab to pre-empt the expected materialist response to their findings. Nonetheless, whether the speculation is dualist or materialist in nature, it is just speculation!

What on earth is going on?

‘He and his colleagues have developed a working hypothesis to explain their findings. Normally, the brain has “braking systems” in place that filter most elements of brain function out of our experience of consciousness. This enables people to efficiently operate in the world, because under regular circumstances, “you couldn’t function with access to your whole brain’s activity being in the realm of consciousness,” he says.

In the dying brain, however, the researchers hypothesize that the braking system is removed. Parts that are normally dormant become active, and the dying person gains access to their entire consciousness—“all your thoughts, all your memories, everything that’s been stored before,” Parnia says. “We don’t know the evolutionary benefit of this, but it seems to prepare people for their transition from life into death.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/some-patients-who-died-but-survived-report-lucid-near-death-experiences-a-new-study-shows/

There is absolutely no scientific or other rationale that provides a basis for their speculation.

Let me repeat, in capitals: NOT ONE OF THE REDs REPORTED IN THE PAPER HAD ANY EEG DATA…LET ALONE EEG ACTIVITY. That is a fact.

On rereading the article, it is also clear that Scientific American are mixing their own interpretation with his musings on the cause of the EEG data.