Terrible science journalism again, this is the original I believe and since then you will have probably already seen "Science proves life after death..." and the like.
Beginning in 2008, scientists looked at 2,060 people who went into cardiac arrest (which they describe as "biologically synonymous with death") at 15 different hospitals in the US, UK, and Austria. Of the 330 people who survived, about 40% recalled awareness while they were clinically dead (the lead doctor tells the Telegraph that number could be higher if some of those people's memories weren't dulled by drugs or sedatives.)
Of those, 46% had memories not commonly associated with NDEs. A sampling:
"I was told I was going to die and the quickest way was to say the last short word I could remember"
"All plants, no flowers"
"Saw lions and tigers"
"Being dragged through deep water"
Only 9% had experiences "compatible" with NDEs, and 2% had ones compatible with OBEs, where they explicitly "saw" or "heard" moments tied to their resuscitation. There was one "validated" case in which the patient was able to describe events that happened during a three-minute period in which he had no heartbeat. "This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn't resume again until the heart has been restarted," says the study's lead researcher. "These experiences warrant further investigation." (Scientists have previously learned that rat brains go into overdrive following cardiac arrest.)
Terrible science journalism again, this is the original I believe and since then you will have probably already seen "Science proves life after death..." and the like.
Or maybe its just as likely that area of the brain such as hearing and memory storage and function independently of consciousness or a heart beat for a short period of time.
So you could have these memories of hearing things, but not actually be conscious of how/where/when you heard them.
Its not like the Heart stopping or losing consciousness specifically stops sound waves from vibrating in your ears, light from entering your eyes, or impulses from firing in your brain (for a short time).
Or maybe its just as likely that area of the brain such as hearing and memory storage and function independently of consciousness or a heart beat for a short period of time.
So you could have these memories of hearing things, but not actually be conscious of how/where/when you heard them.
Its not like the Heart stopping or losing consciousness specifically stops sound waves from vibrating in your ears, light from entering your eyes, or impulses from firing in your brain (for a short time).
Of course, but life after death is a loaded term meant to evoke the afterlife discussion.
Clinically dead is not exactly brain death in what we are learning as residual activity occurs for minutes after "clinical death" so what we are seeing here is not the first time we've seen this, and its actually been fairly well studied in the last 5-10yrs, we've even been able to stimulate parts of the brain in order to enduce an out of body experience and feelings as described by NDE patients.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
What is terrible about it exactly, Thor? Because it doesn't confirm a biased assumption that consciousness is generated by the brain? The fact of the matter is NOBODY knows that for a fact yet. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. As of today, we don't know if consciousness survives the death of our body.
Shouldn't scientists be looking in to people's reports of NDE's? We should be open to the possibility that there is life after death. It's arrogant to think we have all the answers.
Because it makes a presumption beyond what the data shows, science journalism needs to tell us the facts as we know it, not leap to claims and statements which are not supported by the available data.
We actually know quite a bit about brain death, the question of consciousness is not as far off as you think, spoiler, its in the brain
Science has looked at NDE's, its actually quite well studied now, and the answers are fascinating and science based, sorry so far no supernatural forces at work at brain death.
What is terrible about it exactly, Thor? Because it doesn't confirm a biased assumption that consciousness is generated by the brain?
I find this an odd thing to say is biased. By this qualifier would you not say it is then biased to suggest consciousness is not generated by the brain? I mean at this point its mostly philosophical discussions about consciousness, however we are getting further into our understanding of our brains and so far everything lends itself to the brain being the source of what we term consciousness.
Science philosopher Dan Dennett made a great little ted talks on this subject, give it a go if your interested.
Ah yes, Rupert Sheldrake, he's the guy who believes dogs are psychic. His video is interesting if you like examples of misrepresentation and straw men.
Haven't seen the other one, though not sure what a fiction author can reliably say about consciousness.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
I watched the first one a long time ago, as I said it's interesting if you like examples of misinterpretation and straw men.
Watching the second one, unless one can objectively substantiate it (this is after all a thread about science) discussing hell doesn't really belong in a scientific discussion. So far he hasn't said anything meaningful. EDIT: "So called" depression or ADD, he's a moron.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Of course, but life after death is a loaded term meant to evoke the afterlife discussion.
Clinically dead is not exactly brain death in what we are learning as residual activity occurs for minutes after "clinical death" so what we are seeing here is not the first time we've seen this, and its actually been fairly well studied in the last 5-10yrs, we've even been able to stimulate parts of the brain in order to enduce an out of body experience and feelings as described by NDE patients.
Personally I love the serious response to my hasty & bad writing. Sorry for that.
I think we are basically saying the same thing. Parts of the brain can function beyond "death", it could continue to use senses and create memories should it become functional again.
It's a vary simple and reasonable explanation that shouldn't take much of a leap to believe, but some people see what they want to see.
The Following User Says Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
All that does make me wonder about people who have their brains frozen though. Could we cheat death eventually? Have our consciousness 'brought back' as it were. Barring the freezing process doesn't kill the brain of course.
Ah yes, Rupert Sheldrake, he's the guy who believes dogs are psychic. His video is interesting if you like examples of misrepresentation and straw men.
Haven't seen the other one, though not sure what a fiction author can reliably say about consciousness.
But cmon...he's a 50 something white male with a fancy British accent. He has to be saying something important.
All that does make me wonder about people who have their brains frozen though. Could we cheat death eventually? Have our consciousness 'brought back' as it were. Barring the freezing process doesn't kill the brain of course.
Personally I think it was just a money making scheme, the brain or "consciousness" isn't a digital disk or storage drive that can be put in a drawer for a few years and re-used again.
I think there's a better case for DNA cloning from frozen cells than actually bringing back a memory from a past life.
Personally I think it was just a money making scheme, the brain or "consciousness" isn't a digital disk or storage drive that can be put in a drawer for a few years and re-used again.
I think there's a better case for DNA cloning from frozen cells than actually bringing back a memory from a past life.
Well they had some luck bringing back some frozen animals they tried experiments with. Course it's hard to ask an animal what it remembers. But they seemed the same.
Of course as it stands now it's a money making scheme, cause we have no idea how the end game goes or if it's even possible. I'm just wondering about where the idea and technology goes from here.
As for DNA cloning, yeah that could work, but it wouldn't be the same person/being just a copy of it.
Because it makes a presumption beyond what the data shows, science journalism needs to tell us the facts as we know it, not leap to claims and statements which are not supported by the available data.
We actually know quite a bit about brain death, the question of consciousness is not as far off as you think, spoiler, its in the brain
Science has looked at NDE's, its actually quite well studied now, and the answers are fascinating and science based, sorry so far no supernatural forces at work at brain death.
These 3 should get you up to speed on what we do know, and what we still need to find answers to.
Why does life after death have to be supernatural? We and everything around us is energy, as is, presumably, consciousness. When we die something has to happen to that energy. Of course most of it decomposes into nutrients for the earth and whatnot. But with all the electric impulses in our brains, and the bodily activities that occur after death, couldn't it be that our consciousness escapes the body no different than the gases, etc? We should be open to all possibilities and just because it's something we don't fully understand yet, doesn't mean it's rooted in the "supernatural".
I do get your point about the poor journalism though.
Why does life after death have to be supernatural? We and everything around us is energy, as is, presumably, consciousness. When we die something has to happen to that energy. Of course most of it decomposes into nutrients for the earth and whatnot. But with all the electric impulses in our brains, and the bodily activities that occur after death, couldn't it be that our consciousness escapes the body no different than the gases, etc? We should be open to all possibilities and just because it's something we don't fully understand yet, doesn't mean it's rooted in the "supernatural".
I do get your point about the poor journalism though.
Certainly a possibility, albeit unlikely considering there is so far nothing hinting at such a possibility within the realms of observation. The problem is akin to suggesting when a computer dies, the software floats away into a new existence. The brain is our hardware, our consciousness is the software and once one goes so does the other, the faint electrical impulses fade after death and cease, no activity is found and how would anything exist beyond that without a supernatural cause?
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
