Understanding the NDE...

#1
As some of you will know, I believe that the classic NDE (cardiac arrest in hospital) is the result of one or more third parties, laying down a pattern on the experients brain whilst it has become more exposed to external fields, due to a loss in power of it’s endogenous EM field.

What I’ve tried to show in the very simplistic examples below are two experients existing patterns, one sad, the other angry, which are overlayed by an external third parties pattern. In each case the differences between these patterns is processed by the experient as if the field information was their own, resulting in an NDE that attempts to understand and incorporate the differences.



Fig 1. External fields intersecting an exposed brain, lay down a new pattern which is processed, and the differences are understood in terms of the NDE.

Each experient understands and incorporates the new pattern in their own way, the angry experient has a repelling experience (red), and the sad experient has an attractive experience (green). However, both experients are simply trying to incorporate the new pattern, and understand it in the most appropriate way.
 
#4
Max,

This is my biggest objection to your idea. Suppose that as a very rough analogy you imagine the neurons as rather like transistors.

Both would generate an electromagnetic field, detectable on the periphery. Indeed if you use a mobile phone close to an FM radio you can hear the electromagnetic interference.

The problem is that at a point say 1 cm distant from the scalp (probably an underestimate) numerous neurons would be almost equidistant (the same observation would apply to a mobile phone, or computer) so the signal you would pick up would be a convolution of a broad envelope over many individual components, and thus could never be translated back into the original operation of the neurons/transistors.

This is compounded by the detection scheme in your setup. These massively averaged signals would be applied to another brain. The neurons in the second brain would contain neural nets that would have developed by a similar statistical process, but the exact layout of neurons would be different. So you would be applying a signal that averaged vast number of neuron signals to another set of neurons that would not even have the same pattern in detail.

How can that transmit useful information?

Another problem would be that ESP is generally considered to be almost distant independent - so it can't depend on the electromagnetic field.

David
 
#5
Max,

This is my biggest objection to your idea. Suppose that as a very rough analogy you imagine the neurons as rather like transistors.

Both would generate an electromagnetic field, detectable on the periphery. Indeed if you use a mobile phone close to an FM radio you can hear the electromagnetic interference.

The problem is that at a point say 1 cm distant from the scalp (probably an underestimate) numerous neurons would be almost equidistant (the same observation would apply to a mobile phone, or computer) so the signal you would pick up would be a convolution of a broad envelope over many individual components, and thus could never be translated back into the original operation of the neurons/transistors.

This is compounded by the detection scheme in your setup. These massively averaged signals would be applied to another brain. The neurons in the second brain would contain neural nets that would have developed by a similar statistical process, but the exact layout of neurons would be different. So you would be applying a signal that averaged vast number of neuron signals to another set of neurons that would not even have the same pattern in detail.

How can that transmit useful information?

Another problem would be that ESP is generally considered to be almost distant independent - so it can't depend on the electromagnetic field.

David
I've tried to explain there are two mechanisms, a read mechanism, and a write mechanism. The former has to be QM, and have sufficient isolation to allow coherent interference.

I don't believe the smearing of fields is a killer to my idea, at least not over a few feet. I think the experient's brain can sometimes make some sense out of it. But the experience is not in the field data... you understand that? The field data is just a pattern. It's just a way of relaying an external pattern to a centralised processor. The concious experience is generated by the read mechanism.
 
#6
As some of you will know, I believe that the classic NDE (cardiac arrest in hospital) is the result of one or more third parties, laying down a pattern on the experients brain whilst it has become more exposed to external fields, due to a loss in power of it’s endogenous EM field.

What I’ve tried to show in the very simplistic examples below are two experients existing patterns, one sad, the other angry, which are overlayed by an external third parties pattern. In each case the differences between these patterns is processed by the experient as if the field information was their own, resulting in an NDE that attempts to understand and incorporate the differences.



Fig 1. External fields intersecting an exposed brain, lay down a new pattern which is processed, and the differences are understood in terms of the NDE.

Each experient understands and incorporates the new pattern in their own way, the angry experient has a repelling experience (red), and the sad experient has an attractive experience (green). However, both experients are simply trying to incorporate the new pattern, and understand it in the most appropriate way.

Hey Max, would you say that under normal circumstances the brain's natural EM field acts as a sort of faraday cage, cancelling out external fields (from other people's brains, for example) and during the NDE this natural 'barrier' is broken? Something like that?
 
#7
I came across this video the other day and it's somewhat related to this topic. I guess it could be considered an alternative to the Morphic Field hypothesis for the 'sense of being stared at'... Of course, it seems any CCTV experiements, given valid positive results, would dismantle the idea. Anyhow--


If Max's ideas are valid, just imagine what intellegence services could be capable of doing with psychotronic weaponry.
 
#8
I've tried to explain there are two mechanisms, a read mechanism, and a write mechanism. The former has to be QM, and have sufficient isolation to allow coherent interference.

I don't believe the smearing of fields is a killer to my idea, at least not over a few feet.
But the same signal in one neuron will mean something different from it would in another, yet a huge number of neurons would contribute about equally to the electromagnetic field a short distance from the brain!
I think the experient's brain can sometimes make some sense out of it. But the experience is not in the field data... you understand that? The field data is just a pattern. It's just a way of relaying an external pattern to a centralised processor. The concious experience is generated by the read mechanism.
Yes but the actual brain contents enumerated neuron by neuron might have 10^10 pieces of information in it, the field you are talking about would have far less.

Is there any evidence that such a field can actually convey information?

David
 
#9
Nope, it's a very large 3D network, sure, there is power drop off, and patten enlargement some feet from the firing, but the field is still temporally and spatially defined, no reason at all in principle that a large 3D QM network like the brain can't get data out of it.

I'd guess it's probably the magnetic component from intracellular currents anyway, and they pass through the scull/scalp completely undistorted which is what I'm looking for. And we know that the brains networks can transduce extremely weak magnetic fields.

As I've also pointed out the field pattern, is just that, a pattern. The experience is not in the field, it's processed via the 'read' mechanism which I assume has sufficiant isolation to allow QM coherent interferance.
 
#10
Hey Max, would you say that under normal circumstances the brain's natural EM field acts as a sort of faraday cage, cancelling out external fields (from other people's brains, for example) and during the NDE this natural 'barrier' is broken? Something like that?
Yes, I think the write field (EM field) acts exactly like that... Alike waves amplify, unlike waves cancel... and the field acts a bit like noise cancelling headphones... that is it acts a little like an active shield, rather than a passive shield. When EM power drops, the read mechanism is more exposed to external fields... but continues to do its job of processing any field intersecting it.
 
#16
You still do not see that there are cases of NDEs that occur in insolation.
NDE type experiences happen all the time. But here I'm discussing the classic NDE due to cardiac arrest in a hospital setting, where we tend to have clearer information about the actual state of the experient. These are particularly interesting to me due to the classic (and sometimes apparently veridical) NDE OBE which often happens on the operating table.
 
#17
Noisy nonlinear systems have long been known to enhance the transmission, transduction or detection of weak signals through stochastic resonance.

Simply put, the addition of noise to a system increases it's response to an external signal, perhaps allowing a biological system to detect, and respond to very weak external fields, far below the thermal noise limit.

There are plenty of papers showing such effects in biological systems, and a few papers I've come across clearly demonstrating noise in neuronal systems can maximise the spiking activity coherence with an external EM signal - indicating a stochastic resonant behavior in the brain.

So once again what I'm suggesting, is that in the sudden absence of the brains endogenous EM field, the brains networks can temporally detect and respond to very weak external EM fields of a similar frequency sensitivity.

I assume this effect operates with increased signal resolution, as the distance between the experient and the EM source is reduced, and that this is the cause of of the classic hospitalised NDE OBE during cardiac arrest.

Taken together with all my other research, I can't at present see any other realistic interpretation of Borjigin's first rat study. Where EEG measurements of a dying rat within a Faraday cage, approximately 17s into cardiac arrest, suddenly begin to show highly synchronised firing that is apparently very similar to the firing of a wakeful human undertaking a visual task.
 
#20
I came across this video the other day and it's somewhat related to this topic. I guess it could be considered an alternative to the Morphic Field hypothesis for the 'sense of being stared at'... Of course, it seems any CCTV experiements, given valid positive results, would dismantle the idea. Anyhow--

The video's interesting but the Dr is a shady character, with numerous accounts of malpractice and a bit of a anti-satanist nutter too. Look it up if you're interested.
 
Top