First hint of 'life after death' in biggest ever scientific study

The fact that we can trigger out of body experiences by stimulating parts of the brain should also be taken into consideration before we leap to extraordinary explanations:

RActivity in one region of the brain could explain out-of-body experiences. Researchers in Switzerland have triggered the phenomenon using electrodes1.

People describe out-of-body experiences as feeling that their consciousness becomes detached from their body, often floating above it. Because these lucid states are popularly linked to the paranormal, "a lot of people are reluctant to talk about them", says neurologist Olaf Blanke of Geneva University Hospital in Switzerland.

Blanke found that electrically stimulating one brain region — the right angular gyrus — repeatedly triggers out-of-body experiences. Blanke and his team were using electrodes to excite the brain of a woman being treated for epilepsy.

The right angular gyrus integrates visual information — the sight of your body — and information that creates the mind's representation of your body. This is based on balance and feedback from your limbs about their position in space.

www.nature.com...

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: VoidHawk

You don't need "eyes" to see. You probably know this by experience, unless you never had a vivid dream.

There are even reports (muffled voice) that we have technology that can actually produce images and voices in your brain directly

Anyway. Modern science says we don't "see" with our eyes: our eyes merely transmit signals to our brains and it are our brains that "see". How exactly this works is still not clear: you have electric and chemical signals and somehow YOU (what / who is "YOU"?) "see" something. What is that "YOU" we're talking about? Some believe "YOU" is simply part of the brain (and a smile is merely atoms changing places), some believe "YOU" is external to the brain. In all cases it may be that "YOU" can also receive information more directly. But how would that function? That is exactly what scientists try to figure out when they investigate these phenomena.

Vivid dreams are a recording of past experiences or even just imagined, its not the same thing as seeing something thats live data.
An obe has left the pineal gland behind, it has no eyes or even ears, so how do these people see or hear?

Assuming something has left the body, and is capable of being aware of its surroundings, I doubt very much that its method of receiving and interpreting information would result in color images and interpretable sound.
For example, there is no such thing as color, just different light frequencies, and its the way our eyes and brain interpret that light data that results in us seeing colors, so how is it that obe's see things in the same way as an awake person? after all, they dont have the same hardware!

My only problem with this study is that we don't actually know if blood is still moving; presumably it IS moving during resuscitation.

They're trying to get the heart started up again, yeah?

The defib sends an electrical impulse into the heart causing it to jolt if nothing else.

There is movement, there is blood flow.

Not much, but it's there.

So Dr Parnia's statement that the brain shuts down after about 20 seconds after the heart has stopped is an interesting detail but nothing more.

After the heart has stopped and the body is still - with no one jumping up and down on the chest and no defib - yes, the brain will shut down in 20 to 30 seconds.

But that isn't what's happening.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ahhh pseudo-science... I love to hear those words from people like you because they always seem to forget that science has been wrong so many times in history (science then becoming pseudo-science) that it's a wonder you guys rely on it so much.

There are things in this universe science can't understand at the moment and probably never will because it looks at the material and physical aspect of life. It's just like you would want to base a study on relationships by looking only at the masculine behaviors in it; your study would be 50% biased.

There are more to this universe than what we can see with our own eyes.
There are more answers within us than anyone could ever imagine.
Answers most ancient civilizations already found and talked about and that have been lost in the 21st century.

The day mankind decided to let go of this ancient knowledge and use science as a tool to understand everything anew, no matter how useful it may seem in recent history, that day he negated himself the right to truly see life for what it is.

That is, a spiritual world entwined in a material reality.

NDE is mostly that. People that get out of their bodies and ego momentarily and see life for what it really is.

Little advice:
Don't depend too much on material attachments and beliefs of this physical reality. In the end it is the only thing that cease to exist.

a reply to: VoidHawk

Not during an Out Of Body Experience, we are always connected to our bodies through the silver cord. I think "the silver cord" is our pineal gland (the spirit gland and seat of the soul.) Just a personal theory.

originally posted by: St0rD
There are things in this universe science can't understand at the moment and probably never will because it looks at the material and physical aspect of life. It's just like you would want to base a study on relationships by looking only at the masculine behaviors in it; your study would be 50% biased.

There are more to this universe than what we can see with our own eyes.
There are more answers within us than anyone could ever imagine.
Answers most ancient civilizations already found and talked about and that have been lost in the 21st century.

That may be true. There may be things we cannot understand.

However, if that is so, then what makes you think you understand enough to believe that humans have a soul or separate consciousness or whatever people want to call it?

Maybe what it is that you can't know is that there is no separate consciousness that exists outside of the confines of the brain (and brain chemistry). If there is no soul nor human consciousness that can exist separate of the body, then there would be no way of discovering that, because death gets in the way.

Personally, I don't know if there is a consciousness that can exist separate from my body or not. However, I've always wondered how it is that some people believe there is; how do these people "know" this?

Ok...Just a few thoughts, and way too many posts to quote, so...

If one is "clinically dead" there are no brain waves showing on the EEG. Therefore, one can not have brain activity!
No brain activity, would mean that there are NO stimuli from any of the five recognized senses! SO, if this does not indicate, at the very least, the possibility of something after death, then we must admit that we do not understand as much as we thought we did, about individual cognition!

SO, assuming the latter, most scientists will admit that we are still in the infancy stages of completely grasping the Universe and all of it's inner workings. They say for that very reason, they have dedicated their life to science, in their quest for fame or knowledge or simply contributing to a better world for future generations. They understand the processes involved for establishing new information to be tested and recognized by their peers. So, why do they so adamantly deny many suggested theories and possibilities, to so many things that are currently unknown? Shouldn't they start from zero, when trying to prove or disprove a new or existing theory? Instead they start from ten! Because 0-9 have already been attempted. And apparently, those previous scientists have already exhausted every conceivable possibility as to render any further attempts, a complete waste of time.

Doesn't that go against everything that science is supposed to stand for?

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt
If one is "clinically dead" there are no brain waves showing on the EEG. Therefore, one can not have brain activity!
No brain activity, would mean that there are NO stimuli from any of the five recognized senses! SO, if this does not indicate, at the very least, the possibility of something after death, then we must admit that we do not understand as much as we thought we did, about individual cognition!

It could also be that there is in fact brain activity, but not something that can be picked up by the current technological limits of the EEG.

a reply to: surrealist

an anyone explain how not only was the man conscious of the events taking place during his rescusitation, but was observing "from the corner of the room", suggesting he was at some distance from his body?

Well one explanation that I can bring to this is something that happened to me from my own experience.

I was on a school trip to Washington DC. So we stop at some place to take a break, and I decided to just close my eyes and relax. Suddenly in my mind I'm able to see my surroundings. To my left there are 2 of my classmates who were sitting.They then begin to stand up doing I don't know what. But then that thought/image zoomed in as if I were right next to them.

I decided to open my eyes and look at that direction and guess what...they were at the exact same spot doing exactly what they were doing when I had my eyes closed.

I was a bit baffled by this experience and had always wondered every since how it happened.

But back to the point. Maybe such an experience can only be activated by the brain under some circumstance or state. Maybe when the man died, he experienced the same thing I did.

originally posted by: St0rD
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ahhh pseudo-science... I love to hear those words from people like you because they always seem to forget that science has been wrong so many times in history (science then becoming pseudo-science) that it's a wonder you guys rely on it so much.

Well despite the best evidence provided, science still needs to make some assumptions. When new evidence comes about, it could potentially debunk those assumptions and in return offer up a new paradigm in its place. However the difference between science and pseudo-science is that pseudo-sciences start with a conclusion then build evidence to support it. This is called a confirmation bias.

Example: Digital voice recordings of old houses with spooky sounds MUST be ghosts instead of something else like electronic interference from old appliances. The person goes into the house with the preconceived idea that ghosts exist and uses the EVP recordings to "prove" it instead of acquiring the EVP first then attempting to explain the odd sounds on the recording through analysis of the house and its makeup.

Though if you think the scientific method is so faulty, do you have a better way of collecting evidence to explain the way the universe works?

There are things in this universe science can't understand at the moment and probably never will because it looks at the material and physical aspect of life. It's just like you would want to base a study on relationships by looking only at the masculine behaviors in it; your study would be 50% biased.

True, but it's the best tool we currently have to understand the universe with. But keep in mind, just because something is undetectable to our human senses, doesn't mean it is undetectable to science. Humans can't sense x-rays with our bodily senses, but we can detect them with special equipment.

There are more to this universe than what we can see with our own eyes.
There are more answers within us than anyone could ever imagine.
Answers most ancient civilizations already found and talked about and that have been lost in the 21st century.

Maybe, I'm not saying that there isn't more to what we currently see and hear; but without the proper evidence to quantify them, they remain unexplained. Though, I doubt that any of the ancient civilizations were even close to a right answer to the things that you are talking about. Most of their claims and beliefs work on confirmation biases (as well as stealing ideas from other cultures then expanding on and appropriating them as their own).

Just because the idea is old, doesn't necessarily mean it is correct. That is a trap that many people such as yourself fall into when studying these topics. For some reason you guys seem to think that humans of the past were more knowledgeable about the esoteric than today. Which makes little sense, since today there are more people on the planet than ever. So it reasons that if those ideas were true, then they'd be more widespread and accepted then.

The day mankind decided to let go of this ancient knowledge and use science as a tool to understand everything anew, no matter how useful it may seem in recent history, that day he negated himself the right to truly see life for what it is.

Seriously don't know what you are getting at here. It's not like there are no spiritual people left on the planet. They are just relegated to fringe sciences because science has shown that much of the crap they spew is that, crap.

That is, a spiritual world entwined in a material reality.

NDE is mostly that. People that get out of their bodies and ego momentarily and see life for what it really is.

Let's try a different approach here. Throw all your preconceived notions out of the window about NDE's, the after-life, god, spirituality, etc. Now just look at the experience. Someone is dying and during the process to save the person's life, said person experiences what we call an NDE. Now attempt to explain what is happening. It can't be done, because we currently don't have a way to measure or quantify the experience (heck we can't even reliably reproduce it). So what gives you the right to make the illogical jump that such an experience is related to visiting and then returning from the afterlife (remember we are pretending like such ideas don't exist in this scenario)?

Little advice:
Don't depend too much on material attachments and beliefs of this physical reality. In the end it is the only thing that cease to exist.

That advice only applies if it can be shown that the spiritual world exists as you believe it does. What if the spiritual world exists, but is in even MORE flux than the physical world?

Maybe start with proving the spiritual world exists first THEN start describing how it works. Before you do that, we can go back and forth all day on what is and isn't the spiritual world (since it all boils down to someone's imagination).

Some advice to throw back at you: Just because science hasn't gotten around to explaining something, doesn't mean that it can't. You should have more trust in the scientific method.

a reply to: surrealist

Lol how much time do they need? Took me a few hours to become certain of it some 12y ago.. Thanks my objective common sense.

To not be selfish ill add although it seems obvious: they went out of their body. That proves some things, the first being that the consciousness or the soul needs a body to stay in the physical world. The second being that even if your body is unconscious, when out, you are obviously aware of everything around you since it you, the consciousness. Third, physical laws dont apply on you anymore since you are on another "plane", which is why you fly and go through matter, and more. Fourth, this isnt a picnic party, if you actually died, so failed to come back, you wouldnt stay very much in that state because believe it or not, the soul is not immortal. You really think you can claim such a thing with just so little information? As below so above, survival is needed even after death. Did you think you could just relax and go where you want? Ha, better believe in wish giving djiins! Where is your maturity for * sake? Only a child believes everything for granted.

Yes raw non predigested truth is not easy to swallow...

Positivists absolutely refuse to discuss this intelligently. I've seen four pages of them arguing about what it means to be "dead", what "you" is, and a host of other irrelevant distractions designed to carefully avoid any discussion regarding the existential reality of the experience described in the OP.

This is what they do. When the facts don't jive with their assumptions, they start nitpicking definitions (or making new ones entirely) to make a reductionist explanation more plausible. Or they just change the subject and try to derail the thread.

Playing word games, in essence. They simply will not entertain any notion of life continuing beyond physical death--even to the point of manipulating, marginalizing or outright ignoring their own coveted "scientific evidence".

Science is great when it supports your sociopolitical agenda. Not so much when it doesn't, eh?

a reply to: GetHyped

Wait so you saying that when someone go out of his body, his brain shouldnt show any sign of anything happening? Are you for real? The conscious is intricately linked to the brain, both need each other! Why do you think your brain waves change when you meditate properly? Because you directly access your consciousness which is located primarly in your brain, both influence each other but more the conscious to brain than opposite. Even easier, when you sleep, your conscious goes unconscious and many things happen in the brain. So its obvious that if the conscious leaves the body your brain will go into a near sleep mode.

Its very easy to destroy the scientists on this, just let them ask anyone that is (to go) out to go elsewhere far from his body, nothing will stop him from doing so, and no science can explain that.

a reply to: NthOther

That couldn't be further from the truth if you tried. I, personally, would like VERY much for there to be an afterlife. It is a fancy idea that I get to continue on being after physical death. But right now, the appropriate evidence (and no the evidence in the OP doesn't count as appropriate evidence) doesn't exist to say that there is an afterlife so I default to Occam's Razor (the explanation with the fewest assumptions is probably the correct one). So until you can prove that NDE's and the resulting OBE's aren't some sort of trick your brain is making on you while extremely close to death, then I won't sign off on the idea of an after life.

To me, all an after life is is currently wishful thinking on the part of people who are terrified of death and the finality that it brings. Though to me, that is ok with me since I won't be conscious to care about it. Then, if I'm wrong I get to be pleasantly surprised.

PS: I think that reincarnation is the most logical after life scenario, but even that I have my doubts on and don't necessarily believe it is true either.

originally posted by: GetHyped
Anyone care to propose a means of testing that the memory of these experiences ...

From "wikipedia.org/wiki/AWARE:_Awareness_during_resuscitation#AWARE"
... investigated out of body claims by using hidden targets placed on shelves that could only be seen from above. Parnia has written "if no one sees the pictures, it shows these experiences are illusions or false memories". Parnia issued a statement indicating that the first phase of the project has been completed and the results are undergoing peer review for publication in a medical journal. No subjects saw the images mounted out of sight according to Parnia's early report of the results of the study at an American Heart Association meeting in November 2013.

en.wikipedia.org...:_Awareness_during_resuscitation#AWARE

Does anyone remember the movie, "Flatliners"?

I'm willing to bet that somewhere, someone has taken the same experiment to a whole new level.

Just find that person and get them to settle this...!

a reply to: engvbany

Interesting. So none of the participants could see the image. Adds weight to the idea that these memories were formed after resuscitation.

a reply to: _damon

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. There is a particular region of the brain that is responsible for the in-body experience. It doesn't actually give the participant the ability to see beyond their senses because it's a cognitive phenomenon, not an actual leaving of the body. it does not in any way suggest that consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt
If one is "clinically dead" there are no brain waves showing on the EEG. Therefore, one can not have brain activity!
No brain activity, would mean that there are NO stimuli from any of the five recognized senses! SO, if this does not indicate, at the very least, the possibility of something after death, then we must admit that we do not understand as much as we thought we did, about individual cognition!

It could also be that there is in fact brain activity, but not something that can be picked up by the current technological limits of the EEG.

Good job! Ignore the entire premise of my post to argue about the capability of a machine designed and exclusively used to do what you are saying it may not be able to do...I hear an entire discipline of medicine, crashing down as we speak!...er...type!...

Why don't we build an ER and an ICU inside of the collector at CERN, to test your hypothesis!

a reply to: GoOfYFoOt

All instruments have limits to the accuracy of their measurements. Soylent Green is suggesting (quite reasonably, I might add) that just because our current technology cannot detect biological activity, doesn't mean that any isn't taking place, rather our instruments aren't accurate enough to measure it below the noise floor.