Man has NDE, told not his time, then dies for real 2 minutes later

#21
I hear you. Still I'm yet to be totally convinced that the few documented veridicals have what it takes to keep up ith the proof grounded model that we need. I feel that under serious scrutiny these 'veridical' have a tendency to somewhat fall appart, like the ones of Pam Reynolds or Maria's shoe (to benoted that the latter would be the real deal if proven genuine, considering the perception of the target shoe was out of reach regarding physical means of perception).
It's easier for me, as I'm coming at the issue after having my own unique and ridiculously accurate childhood OBE whilst asleep one night...

...but I wasn't dying to my knowledge, and it wasn't a premonition, and after giving it a great deal of thought over many years, I reject the idea that I was out of my body.

In my view, there is sufficient scientific information to cobble together a speculative prescientific physical theory, as a way of understanding most of these odd phenomena.

But I don't blame you for being highly suspicious. If I hadn't had this experience, and if it hadn't been witnessed by three other people, it would have been harder for me to accept other people's experiences.
 
#23
This is an interesting video for anyone curious about the methodology in Parnia's research. Looks like he's had portable stands made to hold up the target pictures in his Aware study. Not only that, they're using audible cues fed into the patient's ears (during cardiac arrest) to presumably test whether patients can still pick up sounds. Apologies if this has been posted somewhere else already.

http://www.today.com/health/near-death-experiences-may-provide-clues-about-afterlife-t105985
Well if nobody can see the target images (i.e. They are secret, hidden and realtime), then none of the Patients who have an OBE will see them either.

Unfortunately, such a result would be seized upon as evidence that these classic OBE's are confabulation or mind models etc.

That would be wrong, as it would only be evidence that people may not really have left their body. But it would not rule out an interaction between third parties and the patient.

The latter being the most likely idea to explain this phenomena in my view. That also fits with haunting type apparitional phenomena as well, which are not the nieve idea of a spirit, but most likely what was in the awareness of third parties viewing a scene.
 
#24
Despite the increased standards, they had managed to recruit over a hundred patients by September. That is not much, but there are bound to be a couple NDEs in there, and it only takes one OBE to really shake things up and put all of the hypotheses to the test.

The project was originally set to end in May, and while recruitment of patients has been an issue, three months ago they seemed enthusiastic enough to consider increasing the money offered as reward.
 
#25
This is an interesting video for anyone curious about the methodology in Parnia's research. Looks like he's had portable stands made to hold up the target pictures in his Aware study. Not only that, they're using audible cues fed into the patient's ears (during cardiac arrest) to presumably test whether patients can still pick up sounds. Apologies if this has been posted somewhere else already.

http://www.today.com/health/near-death-experiences-may-provide-clues-about-afterlife-t105985
Interesting video, thank you.

At 3:33 in the video, you can see a quick glance of Sam Parnia giving a TEDx talk called "Demystifying Death". I've tried googling it but I can't find this talk online anywhere. Anyone else has a clue where to find it? I'd very much like to see it.
 
#26
Interesting video, thank you.

At 3:33 in the video, you can see a quick glance of Sam Parnia giving a TEDx talk called "Demystifying Death". I've tried googling it but I can't find this talk online anywhere. Anyone else has a clue where to find it? I'd very much like to see it.
TEDxSBU: https://tedxsbu.stonybrook.edu/2014-photos-and-videos/

What is most intriguing is that Parnia uses almost the exact same words the he used after the original AWARE, he does not seem to be "backtracking" as some people suggested in here. This interview taking place three months after the presentation (above) was distributed is most interesting, given his language.

Edit: It's actually the 2014 event.
 
Last edited:
#27
TEDxSBU: https://tedxsbu.stonybrook.edu/2014-photos-and-videos/

What is most intriguing is that Parnia uses almost the exact same words the he used after the original AWARE, he does not seem to be "backtracking" as some people suggested in here. This interview taking place three months after the presentation (above) was distributed is most interesting, given his language.

Edit: It's actually the 2014 event.
First time i read that Parnia was backtracking. He always was careful with his words when it came to critical topics like the survival of consciousness and so on.

Aware in general hopefully provides us with some hints this time for something. Though im not looking forward to what will happen if the results dont provide veridical information.
 
#28
First time i read that Parnia was backtracking. He always was careful with his words when it came to critical topics like the survival of consciousness and so on.

Aware in general hopefully provides us with some hints this time for something. Though im not looking forward to what will happen if the results dont provide veridical information.
It was even the title of a thread (in which you commented :)):
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/is-parnia-backing-down.2198/

And it is occasionally brought up, the last time by our recurrent troll in October. It's hearsay AFAIK, I agree that Parnia is as measured as they come.
 
#30
Well if nobody can see the target images (i.e. They are secret, hidden and realtime), then none of the Patients who have an OBE will see them either.
:) I'm surprised you didn't put a mince pie on the end of that "hook," Max. Is this opinion based on any evidence or just a fondness (understandably so) for your own theory ......

I have no doubt that patient's "souls" (or what ever we want to call that entity that comprises our consciousness) float around the ICU and beyond but of course that doesn't mean I'm right, naturally. However, as I'm practically identical in make up to the thousands of people who have reported this experience (with great certainty lets be honest), I can't conceive realistically that when it happens to me, I will suddenly realise that what I'm experiencing is a projection from someone else's endogenous fields.

Have a happy endogenous Christmas, Max, you're a good sport.
 
#31
Despite the increased standards, they had managed to recruit over a hundred patients by September. That is not much, but there are bound to be a couple NDEs in there, and it only takes one OBE to really shake things up and put all of the hypotheses to the test.

The project was originally set to end in May, and while recruitment of patients has been an issue, three months ago they seemed enthusiastic enough to consider increasing the money offered as reward.
Personally I don't think it matters too much if they are behind in their recruiting targets. We'll just have to be patient (no pun intended), I'm sure Parnia is doing his best.
 
Last edited:
#32
It was even the title of a thread (in which you commented :)):
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/is-parnia-backing-down.2198/

And it is occasionally brought up, the last time by our recurrent troll in October. It's hearsay AFAIK, I agree that Parnia is as measured as they come.
Parnia is treading a difficult path with considerable dexterity I'd say. We have no idea what goes on behind the scenes, but I can imagine the he has occasionally some difficult encounters within his working life. Every piece of research conducted has to be framed within the context of conventional medicine. Though to onlookers it may appear otherwise, when one follows the strict letter of what he says regarding studies, they always address the more practical aspects, patient care, successful outcomes and so on. Though he does push at the boundaries, he is still operating within the constraints of a real-world working environment.

This might be contrasted perhaps with some who rebel against the system, and become outcasts, or others who wait until retirement before breaking cover and becoming more outspoken.

Having said that, I don't get the impression that Parnia says one thing while meaning another, the views he expresses often seem a rather down-to-earth representation of what the evidence shows, with little time for speculation, except for occasional comments tagged with "we don't know" so that even when speculating it is still in effect a request for more research.
 
#33
Though im not looking forward to what will happen if the results dont provide veridical information.
They will provide veridical information, Das. That always occurs, it's just that it's going to take something extra (maybe a bit of luck) for someone to focus on the target and remember it.
 
#34
I hear you. Still I'm yet to be totally convinced that the few documented veridicals have what it takes to keep up ith the proof grounded model that we need. I feel that under serious scrutiny these 'veridical' have a tendency to somewhat fall appart, like the ones of Pam Reynolds or Maria's shoe (to benoted that the latter would be the real deal if proven genuine, considering the perception of the target shoe was out of reach regarding physical means of perception).
I don't think they fall-apart as such but perhaps are muddied. Sometimes genuinely and sometimes tactically by those with an agenda. Nevertheless I don't think it's possible to reach a final conclusion about NDEs unless they can be genuinely excluded or included. The difficulty is that as with a lot of such phenomena it's difficult for those of us simply reading the accounts to make anything other than a provisional judgement as far as I can see.
 
Last edited:
#35
Parnia is treading a difficult path with considerable dexterity I'd say. We have no idea what goes on behind the scenes, but I can imagine the he has occasionally some difficult encounters within his working life. Every piece of research conducted has to be framed within the context of conventional medicine. Though to onlookers it may appear otherwise, when one follows the strict letter of what he says regarding studies, they always address the more practical aspects, patient care, successful outcomes and so on. Though he does push at the boundaries, he is still operating within the constraints of a real-world working environment.

This might be contrasted perhaps with some who rebel against the system, and become outcasts, or others who wait until retirement before breaking cover and becoming more outspoken.

Having said that, I don't get the impression that Parnia says one thing while meaning another, the views he expresses often seem a rather down-to-earth representation of what the evidence shows, with little time for speculation, except for occasional comments tagged with "we don't know" so that even when speculating it is still in effect a request for more research.
It seems to me that Parnia's opinion on NDE's is only worth as much as his opinion on the data which is available to everyone as far as I can see. If he is cautious it's probably because the results are not conclusive.
 
#36
It seems to me that Parnia's opinion on NDE's is only worth as much as his opinion on the data which is available to everyone as far as I can see. If he is cautious it's probably because the results are not conclusive.
I don't agree that his caution is solely down to the results themselves. It is much more related to the fact that he is a working professional within mainstream medicine, it could be career suicide (and thus spell the end to the studies too) to say more.

There is also a conclusion to be drawn from the mere fact that there are any such studies at all. Back in about 2008-10 he said that the study should take about 3 years to complete, and that he expected the outcome would be to show that what occurred during an NDE was probably just some sort of illusion. In that case he more or less said the study would end. That there are ongoing studies demonstrates that it was not found to be an illusion.

Another point is that though Parnia refers to ideas from others, he doesn't draw conclusions based upon them, his conclusions are more or less confined to the evidence gathered within his own fairly narrow field, that of cardiac arrest in a hospital setting. He does acknowledge that there are anecdotal reports which make much more far-reaching statements, and while not dismissive of such reports, again he makes no conclusions except those from his own or related studies.

In a way the task he and his team have set themselves is one of replication. We already have vast numbers of NDE reports outside the clinical setting, the task set is to reproduce it within a controlled environment. In that respect it may mirror much other research in parapsychology, where say in dream studies or precognition, real-world occurrences tend to be much more vivid, intense and meaningful than those obtained in the laboratory. But that doesn't mean we should close our ears to all but laboratory reports. On the contrary, research in the lab and in the clinical setting does not contradict the external reports, it tends to support them, as far as it goes.

My view is that we need not depend on one person or one project to provide a source of data, we can cast our net rather wider.
 
#37
I think Parnia had to become more cautious in his statements when the AWARE results were being collected and then published because his personal views from talking to patients were not the same as scientific conclusions justified by the AWARE data. If he was doing a different kind of study, then he might be able to say more, but under the circumstances he cannot go beyond what can be justified by his published results. And this continues as he works on the follow up study to AWARE. If he made statements that were not based on his published data, it could discredit him as a scientist, people would say he is making unfounded conclusions, and that would jeopardize funding and collaboration on his research especially because it is a controversial field.
 
Last edited:
#38
First time i read that Parnia was backtracking. He always was careful with his words when it came to critical topics like the survival of consciousness and so on.

Aware in general hopefully provides us with some hints this time for something. Though im not looking forward to what will happen if the results dont provide veridical information.
The determined nature of researchers to continue putting hidden & secret targets on high is a great disappointment to me...

Why they are trying to produce evidence for an actual location (up high), before they have investigated whether the recalled information is simply accurate, makes little sense to me.

Particularly as when hidden targets on high are not seen, the daft assumptions on both sides seem to be either 'must try harder', or 'it's a trick of the mind'.

A shotgun approach to visual targets at this stage makes far more sense to me. That is various targets at different heights, from the floor up. Just a few accurate hits on those would start to build a body of evidence that might tempt more main stream scientists to take a peep at what is going on.

From the way I'm assuming Aware II works, if they get no hidden secret visual target hits (and they won't), views will harden further against the veridicality of the classic NDE OBE'. Which would be a great pity.

Although, or the other hand, it might help with finally closing the door on these hidden target studies on high... so we can concentrate on the less targeted, and more fruitful approach of whether the visual information recalled is even veridical.
 
#39
Why they are trying to produce evidence for an actual location (up high), before they have investigated whether the recalled information is simply accurate, makes little sense to me.
Can you state what part of the reports of Mr A and Vanessa in Aware 1 were not basically accurate, Max ?

Particularly as when hidden targets on high are not seen,
You must be referring to Penny's patient 10 here I guess. As far as I can remember he is the only patient who has ever been in a position to view a potential target in the whole literature. He didn't see it, no but if you remember, he also stated, "To be honest, Penny I didn't look, I didn't twist my head back that way !"

Now, Penny was the nurse who was attending to him. She was the conductor of the study and she was the person who stuck that bright red/pink symbol up on the top of the monitor. She also cleaned his mouth with the pink sponge etc. Does it not occur to you (given your theory) that she could have quite reasonably transmitted that symbol into her patient's brain from her own brain, because it would quite likely have been very much on her mind at this time...but it didn't happen.

Of course, you'll probably say that she wasn't directly looking at it when she was attending to him but then you are being selective.
 
Last edited:
#40
I don't agree that his caution is solely down to the results themselves. It is much more related to the fact that he is a working professional within mainstream medicine, it could be career suicide (and thus spell the end to the studies too) to say more.

There is also a conclusion to be drawn from the mere fact that there are any such studies at all. Back in about 2008-10 he said that the study should take about 3 years to complete, and that he expected the outcome would be to show that what occurred during an NDE was probably just some sort of illusion. In that case he more or less said the study would end. That there are ongoing studies demonstrates that it was not found to be an illusion.

Another point is that though Parnia refers to ideas from others, he doesn't draw conclusions based upon them, his conclusions are more or less confined to the evidence gathered within his own fairly narrow field, that of cardiac arrest in a hospital setting. He does acknowledge that there are anecdotal reports which make much more far-reaching statements, and while not dismissive of such reports, again he makes no conclusions except those from his own or related studies.

In a way the task he and his team have set themselves is one of replication. We already have vast numbers of NDE reports outside the clinical setting, the task set is to reproduce it within a controlled environment. In that respect it may mirror much other research in parapsychology, where say in dream studies or precognition, real-world occurrences tend to be much more vivid, intense and meaningful than those obtained in the laboratory. But that doesn't mean we should close our ears to all but laboratory reports. On the contrary, research in the lab and in the clinical setting does not contradict the external reports, it tends to support them, as far as it goes.

My view is that we need not depend on one person or one project to provide a source of data, we can cast our net rather wider.
That's probably fair to say too. Although he already seems to have exposed himself professionally quite extensively. If the evidence is so strong I don't really accept it would necessarily be damaging to him. I can't really think of a better way to get evidence that would be acceptable from a scientific point of view.

The evidence for survival and for NDEs comes from many sources I agree. If Sam Parnia finds good evidence that's great. If he doesn't, it doesn't affect the positive evidence from other sources, which is I think the point you're making.
 
Top