David Bailey
Member
I am always cautious about putting too much confidence in fragments of amazing new research (at least in the medical field) see for instance:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
I am also cautious about the implication that amazing NDE experiences are generated by residual activity in the brain after the heart has stopped beating.
Remember what smaller assaults to the brain typically do. A person who faints, only has a reduced blood flow to the brain, but they lose consciousness. People with damage to parts of their brain (strokes, head impacts etc.) are usually either unconscious or muddled in the early stages. Is it reasonable to assume that some residual brain activity which doesn't even show up on a normal EEG represents a hyper-real experience that will be remembered for the rest of that person's life?
I become suspicious/cynical when scientists dismiss the very tools that they normally use to study the brain - EEG machines - in order to 'explain' phenomena that would otherwise be unexplainable. Nowadays a lot of super-sensitive measurements can be made - think of detectors for minute quantities of chemicals - and it must always be a challenge to decide if these measurements are in any way useful.
David
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
I am also cautious about the implication that amazing NDE experiences are generated by residual activity in the brain after the heart has stopped beating.
Remember what smaller assaults to the brain typically do. A person who faints, only has a reduced blood flow to the brain, but they lose consciousness. People with damage to parts of their brain (strokes, head impacts etc.) are usually either unconscious or muddled in the early stages. Is it reasonable to assume that some residual brain activity which doesn't even show up on a normal EEG represents a hyper-real experience that will be remembered for the rest of that person's life?
I become suspicious/cynical when scientists dismiss the very tools that they normally use to study the brain - EEG machines - in order to 'explain' phenomena that would otherwise be unexplainable. Nowadays a lot of super-sensitive measurements can be made - think of detectors for minute quantities of chemicals - and it must always be a challenge to decide if these measurements are in any way useful.
David