Pearl Curran exchanges with Ray (automatic writing)

[_Ray A]

When you show that you're reasonably well informed about the subject, it might worth pursuing it more. I'm not interested in wasting any more time. I've told you, again and again, that I have no dog in this race. I'm interested in the research, but as for "proving" there's life after death, or "proving" consciousness can survive bodily death - I could not give the proverbial rat's arse.

[_marg]

When you show that you're reasonably well informed about the subject, it might worth pursuing it more. I'm not interested in wasting any more time. I've told you, again and again, that I have no dog in this race. I'm interested in the research, but as for "proving" there's life after death, or "proving" consciousness can survive bodily death - I could not give the proverbial rat's arse.

Ray you've done more than be passive in this discussion and I do need to correct you. You've suggested the Lancet article is indicative that real scientists are speculating there is much more than physiology going on, with regards to NDE's. In otherwords you think the Lancet scientists were suggesting paranormal explanations involved. I believe you misread their intent. I believe what they meant is that other factors than "pure physiology" are involved, such as age, sex, memory to name some of the factors they brought up.

[_Ray A]

You've suggested the Lancet article is indicative that real scientists are speculating there is much more than physiology going on, with regards to NDE's.

They are. Van Lommel is a "real scientist".

In otherwords you think the Lancet scientists were suggesting paranormal explanations involved. I believe you misread their intent. I believe what they meant is that other factors than "pure physiology" are involved, such as age, sex, memory to name some of the factors they brought up.

Medical Evidence for NDEs.

[_marg]

In otherwords you think the Lancet scientists were suggesting paranormal explanations involved. I believe you misread their intent. I believe what they meant is that other factors than "pure physiology" are involved, such as age, sex, memory to name some of the factors they brought up.

Medical Evidence for NDEs.

Thanks Ray, that response from Lommel assuming it is from him makes it very clear where he stands. On my quick read I believe I understood him to suggest consciousness exists outside the brain and I believe he even speculates that the brain receives messages that it doesn't generate from within the body necessarily. I found a number of holes in his reasoning which I will address in another post as I go through the article. I believe this is the article that was in Scientific American in March 2003 to which Lommel refers written By M. Shermer. Michael Shermer opinion piece in Scientific Am. March 2003 Just thought I'd post it for reference so we know what exactly he's replying to and what Shermer said.

[_marg]

Lommel's article is long so I'll break up the responses I have to it.

From these studies we know that in our prospective study of patients that have been clinically dead (VF on the ECG) no electric activity of the cortex of the brain (flat EEG) must have been possible, but also the abolition of brain stem activity like the loss of the corneareflex, fixed dilated pupils and the loss of the gag reflex is a clinical finding in those patients. However, patients with an NDE can report a clear consciousness, in which cognitive functioning, emotion, sense of identity, and memory from early childhood was possible, as well as perception from a position out and above their “dead” body. Because of the sometimes reported and verifiable out-of -body experiences, like the case of the dentures reported in our study, we know that the NDE must happen during the period of unconsciousness, and not in the first or last second of this period.

Ok RAY THIS IS A HOLE IN HIS REASONING. How does he know that when the person has NDE memories which occurred when clinically dead? He bases it on anecdoctal evidence not objective verifiable evidence. He’s relying upon a nurse and a patient's say so. That is not how rigorous science is done. The study you mentioned that is going to be done by Parnia eliminates that subjective element by staging a test, which will render the results objective independent of subjective manipulations.

So we have to conclude that NDE in our study was experienced during a transient functional loss of all functions of the cortex and of the brainstem.

No he does not have to conclude as he's not proved that NDE is remembered during functional loss of cortex and brainstem.

It is important to mention that there is a well documented report of a patient with constant registration of the EEG during cerebral surgery for an gigantic cerebral aneurysm at the base of the brain, operated with a body temperature between 10 and 15 degrees, she was put on the heart-lung machine, with VF, with all blood drained from her head, with a flat line EEG, with clicking devices in both ears, with eyes taped shut, and this patient experienced an NDE with an out-of-body experience, and all details she perceived and heard could later be verified. (8)

He's referring to the Pam Reynolds case, a very unconvincing one. Again it does not establish memories occurred when clinically dead. Again this is subjective, not rigorous science. Woerlee addresses this case and explains it with a completely physiological scenario.

I'll continue later...

[_Ray A]

I'll continue later...

I'll read, but I really don't feel passionate about debating this. I'll wait for the results of the Parnia research.

If they determine that consciousness doesn't survive death, I'll say "cheers", and have a beer.

If they determine that consciousness does survive death, I'll say "cheers", and have a beer.

And if you want to believe it's all codswallop - Cheers.

[_marg]

I'll continue later...

I'll read, but I really don't feel passionate about debating this. I'll wait for the results of the Parnia research.

If they determine that consciousness doesn't survive death, I'll say "cheers", and have a beer.

If they determine that consciousness does survive death, I'll say "cheers", and have a beer.

And if you want to believe it's all codswallop - Cheers.

Well Ray I'm interested in critical thinking. And this particular issue you brought up requires it because extraordinary claims are being made, and we even have scientists conducting studies, who have made it publically known i.e. Lommel that he believes consciousness exists outside the brain.

Of course it is difficult for the layman to critically evaluate if they are unfamiliar with specialized jargon and medical science.

I'm going to be upfront with you, my opinion is that Lommel has done shoddy science, he's what Fawn Brodie is to the Spalding theory..when it comes to NDE's. He's managed to convince a lot of people and because he is a scientists that helps tremendously, that NDE's are more than physiological manifestations. But he's done it with shoddy science not rigorous objective science, just as Brodie did it with shoddy arguments against the spalding theory. His opinions on this are not respected in the scientific community, which I will get into in another post. thought they are respected by people who have faith in NDE's.

If you think about it, being that he makes some extraordinary claims particularly in the public, not so much in his study/lancet published article where he's not clear with his personal opinions (and that may explain M. Shermer's misunderstanding of it), but if there was substance in his beliefs, and rigorous science to back them up, he'd have a lot more support from the scientific community. Not even S. Blackmore goes along with his findings. Instead the support he gets is from people like you pushing an agenda of a belief that consciousness exists outside the body, people who belong to, who support NDE associations with that agenda, and their presence from my perusal of the Internet appears to be strong. One needs to be able to cut through the bull crap Ray, determine good science from bad and admittedly that is difficult for the average person.

[_marg]

Here is a brief recap of my findings which I will back up later with perspectives from scientists (which I came across last night on the Net)

1) Lommel did not determine using rigorous science that NDE's occurred when patients were completely unconscious.

2) the assumption he makes in the Lancet article that all patients unconscious should have experienced NDE's if phsiological was the only cause of them is flawed..obviously...if it has not been scientifically rigorously established that NDE's occurred when the brain was inactive. Consequently his conclusion of more than physiological manifestations are involved..is unreliable..not been demonstrated by any stretch of the imagination.

3) It is well known to any good thinking scientist that anecdotal stories are unreliable, not objective rigorous science, yet Lommel relies upon those to prove verifiable out of body experiences.

4) If in fact consciousness can leave the dead body and view it below an objective test can easily be done, as what is planned by Parnia. I have to wonder why Lommel never did such a study.

5) It is known that NDE's and OBE's can be induced, so Lommel recognizes and acknowledges physiology must play a role. Michael Persinger which Michael Shermer mentions in the Sci Am article I linked to previously mentions this. "New evidence indicates that they are, in fact, a product of the brain. Neuroscientist Michael Persinger, in his laboratory at Laurentian University in Sudbury, Canada, for example, can induce all of these experiences in subjects by subjecting their temporal lobes to patterns of magnetic fields (I tried it and had a mild out-of-body experience)."

I'll continue later...

[_Ray A]

Instead the support he gets is from people like you pushing an agenda of a belief that consciousness exists outside the body, people who belong to, who support NDE associations with that agenda, and their presence from my perusal of the Internet appears to be strong. One needs to be able to cut through the bull s*** Ray, determine good science from bad and admittedly that is difficult for the average person.

Sure marg, sure. I bow to your above average knowledge of science, and your expertise in everything.

[_marg]

Instead the support he gets is from people like you pushing an agenda of a belief that consciousness exists outside the body, people who belong to, who support NDE associations with that agenda, and their presence from my perusal of the Internet appears to be strong. One needs to be able to cut through the bull s*** Ray, determine good science from bad and admittedly that is difficult for the average person.

Sure marg, sure. I bow to your above average knowledge of science, and your expertise in everything.

What happened to your open mind Ray?

For one critique on Lommel from a scientist see Mark Crislip dissects some medical research on near death experiences. Crislip is an Infectious Disease doctor in Portland, Oregon

Let me know what you think about what he has to say. I'll likely comment on it later.