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

Only fools argue over the validity of -someone elses- experience(s).

originally posted by: GetHyped
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...

But that makes too much sense! This dream-like feeling turns out to be all in our head just like our dreams! Shocking!

Seriously tho, the bias towards wanting "the other side" to be a real thing is huge. I mean, I don't blame people, no one who isn't completely sociopathic wouldn't want it to be true. The idea that there's ultimate justice (for wars, accidents etc.), the ability to meet your dead friends, is inherently satisfying. Pretty much no one wants to believe they die and just cease to exist. And it's not necessarily just selfish reasons.

So at the end of the day the desire to explain these sensations as us having a soul and being able to "cheat" death by somehow surviving after the demise of our physical bodies is just so widespread.

originally posted by: GreenMtnBoys
a reply to: neoholographic

Sorry but I don't buy her story ! I mean come on! If I was giving a presentation on how I had lemon sized tumors in my body and then one day woke up and everything was gone and I was fine a huge part of my presentation would incorporate photographic evidence!!!! Where are the actual scans? Doctors notes? Diagnoses etc. could she not find one doctor who would stand up and atleast verify her cancer and medical condition?

That's what I don't get about people like her that make these claims. Part of your entire point of recovery and NDE is trying to convince people of amazing things to believe in, an entire different outlook on life. So in people's mind what makes her so different than the Tony Robbins and Joel Osteens of the world. There are some very elaborate scams and very crazy people out there in the world....desperate people. She could be a complete liar.....or not.

Are you joking?

Her story has been verified by Doctors and this is why her book was a New York Times Bestseller and she has been everywhere from TED, the Huffington Post, Fox News and more.

This is more about you, not her. You want to blindly reject her claim in order to fit what you already believe. If you would actually take the time to do some research before you post, then you wouldn't make such statements.

Again, her story isn't unique. Many near death experiences are associated with going from a local consciousness to non local awareness. This is a common feature in these experiences. So instead of blindly making silly claims without actually doing research, you should try to look into these things. All it takes is a simple Google Search.

Google Search Anita Moorjani

Here's a site with even more research and similar experiences.

www.near-death.com...

It's also funny when you think about the hypocrisy of materialist.

On one hand, they say, "How can you trust other people's experiences?" "That's not Science!!"

Yet, when a scientist comes along that they agree with and says, "Look, I produced an out of body experience in the lab."

The materialist then accepts SOMEONE'S EXPERIENCE LOL!! How did the scientist verify that they produced an out of body experience in the lab?? They were told of the experience by the person in the study.

So why do you trust the word of the person in a study on O.B.E. that you want to believe and you don't trust the word of the person who had a near death experience?

The hypocrisy of materialist!

It's worth repeating that none of the 140 patients were able to identify a single hidden image. To suggest this is evidence of "life after death" or "conscious residing outside of the brain" is just plain silly.

originally posted by: GetHyped
It's worth repeating that none of the 140 patients were able to identify a single hidden image. To suggest this is evidence of "life after death" or "conscious residing outside of the brain" is just plain silly.

Didn't see that part and that's exactly what I was looking for as far as true validity of these claims. No one is arguing that they didn't see/feel this. But to suggest that they WERE actually in the position that they saw themselves in, requires more than their own subjective experience.

If these visions of one floating around in the room that patients have, are truly them floating around and not just something their brain imagined (and experiments HAVE shown that by stimulating certain parts of the brain you can recreate this sensation even without NDE) then at least some of them should be able to gain information that wasn't visible to them from an operating table.

If they put a picture of a, let's say, penguin on top of a shelf and patients' "souls" truly floated in the room they SHOULD be able to recall a penguin. If none of them do, the logical conclusion is that it's all in the head, just like our dreams.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

Absolutely!

This is the one point that afterlifers conveniently miss.

Death is a return to the state you were before you were born.... nothing.

How do you know?

There have been quite a few cases that have recorded this, such as describing what doctors said and did in another room while the patient was in a bed with their eyes taped, or seeing a nurse put their dentures in a drawer in another room while they were "dead" and knowig the exact location. Or being able to see an item in the roof that was later verified. There are plenty of cases that have things in them that cannot be dismissed. But this is the thing, beliefs will filter out "proof" in order for their concept of reality to continue. This is what humans do and no one (myself included) is immune from it. That's why its good for us to be aware that we have biases and core beliefs and it's important for us to realize this no so much in others but more importantly in ourselves.

a reply to: TheCable

Without commenting on the 'stimulating parts of the brain' and how it relates to 'biggest ever scientific study'...but, a reason could always be concocted for why someone could 'identify' a picture of a penguin on top of a shelf...etc...

No-one involved would be required to know where the picture was for it to be halfway relevant...not the subject, not the experimenters, no-one...

How would this be achieved?
The claim that someone knew, would/is always raised, as they always have been in spectacular NDE accounts...no amount of 'evidence' will ever prove it either way satisfactorily...

Å99

a reply to: TheCable

You said:

If they put a picture of a, let's say, penguin on top of a shelf and patients' "souls" truly floated in the room they SHOULD be able to recall a penguin. If none of them do, the logical conclusion is that it's all in the head, just like our dreams.

Why should they be able to recall a penguin you put on the top shelf?

First off, in many cases, things happening in the room and outside the room are described in detail. These descriptions usually pertain to what family members are doing and also what's going on with their bodies. They're dying and not worrying about penguins on the ceiling.

So the only way you can reach this ILLOGICAL CONCLUSION is if you're just looking for any excuse not to look at these findings logically.

a reply to: neoholographic

In 2009 the author said this

Dr Sam Parnia, who is heading the study, said: "If you can demonstrate that consciousness continues after the brain switches off, it allows for the possibility that the consciousness is a separate entity.
"It is unlikely that we will find many cases where this happens, but we have to be open-minded.
"And if no one sees the pictures, it shows these experiences are illusions or false memories.

news.bbc.co.uk...

That was the author's null hypothesis. Now you are trying to explain away the very glaring flaw in the conclusions being drawn as somehow not being significant. Looks like if anyone's looking for excuses, it's you.

a reply to: GetHyped

I don't know how related the null hypothesis is to that last highlighted statement...

Clearly, someone knows about the picture.
I'm late enough into the thread to plead a little ignorance (and time constrained) to wonder why a consciouness would particularly be drawn to a picture specifically anyway...

Å99

a reply to: akushla99

Unless someone has another means of objectifying whether or not the memories were formed during or after the event then I fail to see why the picture test is somehow invalid, especially when the author of the study, prior to it taking place, states it as the null hypothesis. To then ignore this blatant failure to invalidate the null hypothesis is nothing more than moving the goalposts.

a reply to: GetHyped

Understand...I'm in no need to be convinced of 'after death'...but acting as devils advocate - the 'goalposts' can always be moved, by either party...

I'm not criticising the reasoning of the scientific process, I'm wondering why anyone is aware of a 'picture' at all...the target would need to be something no-one counted on, or knew about, before - during - or afterwards...in which case - it is always dismissed as Not the target...which is what the null hypothesis says...
Have I gotten that wrong?
Excuse my ignorance

Å99

originally posted by: akushla99
a reply to: GetHyped

I don't know how related the null hypothesis is to that last highlighted statement...

Clearly, someone knows about the picture.
I'm late enough into the thread to plead a little ignorance (and time constrained) to wonder why a consciouness would particularly be drawn to a picture specifically anyway...

Å99

Great points!

That's not moving the goal post, it's just basic common sense.

These people are dying and their focus is on their bodies being operated on and their family members. Why would they worry about a picture or a penguin on the shelf?

There's people who describe what's going on in the room with their bodies and what family members are doing during these times.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
a reply to: surrealist
Clinical death may not be the moment of actual death. Acute awareness from the senses 3 minutes after the blood stops flowing is hardly proof of life after death. If he was dead for 3 days then it would be something to wonder about.
Ever be in a dream and have a persistent sound awaken you and even become part of your dream? It is the alarm clock miracle.

I heard the lead doctor of this study speaking on the radio.
He said some of the cases had been clinically dead for up to a couple hours. Not exactly 3 minutes is it?

What prevents a "spirit" or "life" from reentering a body is down to the decomposition of the cells. If the cells can be kept "alive" for 3 days then yes it would be possible even after 3 days.
You talk about dreams, but dreams require an active brain. This has proven that consciousness can exist beyond an active brain.
For decades we have been told that the brain is the seat of consciousness, this study shows us otherwise.
But Im certain that there are people that will never accept it, it goes against their "belief systems".

It must also be noted that only 46% of those studied had any experience at all.

a reply to: neoholographic

So you don't consider a failure to refute the null hypothesis a fatal flaw, and you don't consider glossing over this moving the goalposts? Seems like you're exercising some motivated reasoning, here.

What method do you propose for objectively verifying whether or not the memories formed during or after the event, then?

originally posted by: TheCable

originally posted by: GetHyped
It's worth repeating that none of the 140 patients were able to identify a single hidden image. To suggest this is evidence of "life after death" or "conscious residing outside of the brain" is just plain silly.

Didn't see that part and that's exactly what I was looking for as far as true validity of these claims. No one is arguing that they didn't see/feel this. But to suggest that they WERE actually in the position that they saw themselves in, requires more than their own subjective experience.

If these visions of one floating around in the room that patients have, are truly them floating around and not just something their brain imagined (and experiments HAVE shown that by stimulating certain parts of the brain you can recreate this sensation even without NDE) then at least some of them should be able to gain information that wasn't visible to them from an operating table.

If they put a picture of a, let's say, penguin on top of a shelf and patients' "souls" truly floated in the room they SHOULD be able to recall a penguin. If none of them do, the logical conclusion is that it's all in the head, just like our dreams.

No the "logical" conclusion is that none of them bothered to go hunting for hidden pictures while being in a state of shock of standing next to their own dead body, while clinicians frantically work to save their life.

Just because you can recreate certain sensations with magnetism and drugs doesnt mean its the answer, just a possibility.
And like I said in the previous post, dreams require an active brain and REM sleep patterns.
The NDE's do not. Which is the whole point of the study in the first place.
To find out if its all in the mind or not, this study found its not.
Obviously more study needs to be carried out, but the results of this study are groundbreaking.

a reply to: OneManArmy

The author quite clearly states that the pictures were the null hypothesis. This study failed to invalidate it. That's a critical blow you can't simply gloss over simply because you want the believe.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: OneManArmy

The author quite clearly states that the pictures were the null hypothesis. This study failed to invalidate it. That's a critical blow you can't simply gloss over simply because you want the believe.

Funny that, because he made no assertions to that when he was talking on the radio yesterday or today.
By what he was saying it would seem that that isnt that important after all.
But Im sure its useful to those that will use any excuse to deny that which goes against their belief system.

I suppose its all due to D.M.T eh?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TheCable

You said:

If they put a picture of a, let's say, penguin on top of a shelf and patients' "souls" truly floated in the room they SHOULD be able to recall a penguin. If none of them do, the logical conclusion is that it's all in the head, just like our dreams.

Why should they be able to recall a penguin you put on the top shelf?

First off, in many cases, things happening in the room and outside the room are described in detail. These descriptions usually pertain to what family members are doing and also what's going on with their bodies. They're dying and not worrying about penguins on the ceiling.

So the only way you can reach this ILLOGICAL CONCLUSION is if you're just looking for any excuse not to look at these findings logically.

Well, I'm specifically talking about a picture because it's a clear and cut way to describe whether what they saw actually happened. Again, they say that they saw "what their family members were doing". What's the exact description? Did one of their family members go to the bathroom at a certain point? Did they get a call on their mobile phone? If they described things like that "in detail" as you put it, yes, I would believe their "souls" floated out of their bodies. Otherwise, it's just far more likely that these images were generated by themselves, just like what happens when we dream.

If their description is something along the lines of "they were worried sick about me!" or "doctors were operating on me, I saw it clear as day!". Then yeah, that's what was supposed to happen, right? That's exactly what their brain would envision.

I get that it's not entirely ethical to ask people silly questions like "what picture did you see on top of the shelf?" when they just fought their way back into life. But that's exactly why I don't trust subjective experiences.