First hint of 'life after death'

[free at last]

I didn't say all, but the preponderance does seem to that way.

I don't want to pick. but you did say this

Again, I disagree. It all seems to be pointing to consciousness residing in the brain

Perhaps you didn't mean it that way ?

 

[free at last]

Again, I disagree. It all seems to be pointing to consciousness residing in the brain, we don't have a complete picture yet, but the puzzle pieces are stacking up quickly.

As per this post Jam

 

[JAM]

As per this post Jam

Oh my gosh, that is a turn of phrase. So done done now.

 

[free at last]

Oh my gosh, that is a turn of phrase. So done done now.

Fair enough.

But when we are having a discussion like this. And someone suggests there is a far simpler explanation. and doesn't seem to agree with those that suggest it might be more complicated.

Saying
Again, I disagree. It all seems to be pointing to consciousness residing in the brain

It certainly sounded more than a turn of phrase. It certainly came across to me as meaning you meant Science seems to be proving or suggesting that consciousness resides only in the brain ? Did you not mean that then ?

 

[JAM]

I don't want to pick. but you did say this

Again, I disagree. It all seems to be pointing to consciousness residing in the brain

Perhaps you didn't mean it that way ?

That is the definition of pick.

 

[JAM]

Fair enough.

But when we are having a discussion like this. And someone suggests there is a far simpler explanation. and doesn't seem to agree with those that suggest it might be more complicated.

Saying
Again, I disagree. It all seems to be pointing to consciousness residing in the brain

It certainly sounded more than a turn of phrase. It certainly came across to me as meaning you meant Science seems to be proving or suggesting that consciousness resides only in the brain ? Did you not mean that then ?

I meant the preponderance of information that we have points in that direction. Everything else is speculation, aka Zeus throws lightening.

 

[barbc56]

This study is not about life after death. If it proves anything, it means that medical knowledge about the length of time consciousness persists after the heart stops, is longer than previously thought.

Unfortunately, the media as usual takes a giant leap of reasoning posting exaggerated headlines saying this is proof of life after death.

Dr. Parnia's work focuses on improving ways to resuscitate victims after the heart stops.

From Dr. Parnia.

Parnia, a critical care doctor and the director of resuscitation research at Stony Brook University School of Medicine, writes in his new book, “Erasing Death: The Science That is Rewriting the Boundaries Between Life and Death,” that a person can now be resuscitated long after they previously would have been considered clinically dead.

The advances in the last 10 years have shown us that it’s only after a person dies that they turn into a corpse, that their brain cells start to die,’’ Parnia told Savannah Guthrie on TODAY Tuesday. “Although most people think this takes place in only four or five minutes, we now know that actually brain cells are viable for up to eight hours.”

Many scientists and doctors believe those commonly described images of white lights and warm feelings are hallucinations brought on by lack of oxygen to the brain. But Parnia feels that they are proof that consciousness is not extinguished after the heart stops beating.

It’s proof, he said, that death is not an absolute but a process that can be reversd"

http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/02/doc...ss-lives-on-for-at-least-a-while-after-death/

Barb

 

[free at last]

I said I didn't want to pick.
I didn't say I wouldn't pick

Especially when you said you did not say something that you clearly did. suggesting I was in someway wrong in pointing that out ?

Hard to have a meaningful discussion. when someone suggests they didn't say something that was at the heart of there own views on the matter being discussed ?

when I posted your words showing you did infact say, what you claimed you didn't ?

You then seemed to try and change its meaning into something else. Calling it just a turn of phrase.

Which I thought was odd.

Because it is clearly at the heart of your views on this subject. since we started discussing this ?

Its a little irrelevant changing the subject, again, about me picking up on these discrepancies
Which I agree I did ?

Anyway. if you want to explain your thoughts anymore than you have already about this subject. I am always interested in peoples views. As long as they are consistent and friendly.
Slightly lost on your points. Jam. But we are all ME/CFS patients here. So I think of everyone on here as a friend
including you. But quite confused

 

[free at last]

This study is not about life after death. If it proves anything, it means that medical knowledge about the length of time consciousness persists after the heart stops, is longer than previously thought.

Unfortunately, the media as usual takes a giant leap of reasoning posting exaggerated headlines saying this is proof of life after death.

Dr. Parnia's work focuses on improving ways to resuscitate victims after the heart stops.

From Dr. Parnia.



http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/02/doc...ss-lives-on-for-at-least-a-while-after-death/

Barb

I think it suggests a little more than medical knowledge about the length of time consciousness persists after the heart stops, is longer than previously thought.Barb
The case they seemed most perplexed about, and dare I say, likely excited about. And if true, likely the most important case of the entire study

Involves the ability of consciousness. to reside separate outside of the brain. with full auditory and visual awarness
Floating high up near the ceiling. Seeing ones own body being worked on. Completely separate from that body.

Recalling accurately everything that was happening to such said body. For up to three minutes. While the brains electrical activity. would likely be at a minimum due to no or little blood flow to the brain after a cardiac arrest.

That's a little bit more than you have suggested here ?
If this case turns out to be a reality in the sense that consciousness can exist free from the brain and body, as this case seems to suggest. Then no it does not prove life after death. But it does add validity to the possibility that Near death experiencers, who claim that life after death is a real phenomena. Actually might be experiencing such a phenomena. If consciousness can actually exist free from the body and brain. It doesn't prove it Barb No
But it suggests its possible. Depending on your views and or beliefs, some might say even likely. These are some of the things I find interesting about the study. regardless of ultimate study design.

 

[free at last]

I meant the preponderance of information that we have points in that direction. Everything else is speculation, aka Zeus throws lightening.

Maybe speculation Jam. Though I do feel some of the researchers of this study, thought the case that involved full auditory and visual awareness of ones self, during cardiac arrest, And Professor Rings own studies
Do seem to suggest it might be a little more than speculation from there point of view.

Lets say speculation with a strong hint of something being possibly more real than mere speculation alone perhaps
I agree, from our points of view we have to trust the researchers. And they have to trust there data.

As such it really does boarder on speculation . But that depends how much you trust the data about recall of patients that have out of body experiences, I suppose. at the moment I am un decided.
So yes you are right to a degree. But speculation can quickly turn to fact. if certain protocols happen to get proven in any later studies, that I hope will happen. like image regognition or other protocols that might succeed beyond any reasonable doubt. That consciousness is existing free from the body and brain

 

[MeSci]

@MeSci

When I click on you link, it takes me back to this page. It sounds fascinating.

Barb

D'oh - that must have been confusing! Here is the link (I hope). I've also corrected it in the original message.

 

[MeSci]

But that is a mystery within a million mysteries! That is just one question answered in a long line of philosophical questions that we have yet to solve scientifically. We are living in a time when many of the BIG questions are on the brink of being answered. Where did life begin? How? When?
Who are we? What makes us human?
Questions that were purely philosophical are becoming empirical as we technology increases and we can observe more and more phenomenon, so exciting!

I agree with most of your points, but to know that we are on the brink of discovering anything would require...clairvoyance!

 

[MeSci]

It is very difficult to explain consciousness. We could say its a electrical impulse in the brain. But of course what of other electrical impulses. In Robots for example. So far we have not been able to create consciousness in robots.

Maybe there's no such thing as consciousness. We are just imagining it.

But with what?

 

[MeSci]

This reminds me I recently watched an hour long presentation by a leading neuroscientist, hottest name in the field

What is that name, please?

 

[Gijs]

What scientists think about consciousness and evolution is also philosophy. Nothing has been proved! It is neither reproducible and observable. Except microevolution changes within the species observed. This perception then backward extrapolated to all other phases which must have occurred in the evolutionary process. This is also philosophical speculation but scientists have no problems with this. The same applies to consciousness nobody can explain why people with cardiac arrest experienced a sharp and clear consciousness after 30 seconds it contradicts the current paradigm. Scientists find that scary.

 

[free at last]

What scientists think about consciousness and evolution is also philosophy. Nothing has been proved! It is neither reproducible and observable. Except microevolution changes within the species observed. This perception then backward extrapolated to all other phases which must have occurred in the evolutionary process. This is also philosophical speculation but scientists have no problems with this. The same applies to consciousness nobody can explain why people with cardiac arrest experienced a sharp and clear consciousness after 30 seconds it contradicts the current paradigm. Scientists find that scary.

Some scientists do find that scary, probably because the effect seems real. yet it doesn't fit in with all there training.

 

[free at last]

Maybe there's no such thing as consciousness. We are just imagining it.

But with what?

To even imagine requires a form of consciousness. Bit of a contradiction that one,But I think I get your point. Its a point that's often used. Like the one where Time doesn't exist. but is created by our own existence. if that was so. it wouldn't be effected by speed. which atomic clocks have proven it does.

 

[natasa778]

Susan something I think, sorry cheesebrain

 

[natasa778]

[QUOTE="free at last, post: 519269, member: ]Like the one where Time doesn't exist. but is created by our own existence. if that was so. it wouldn't be effected by speed. which atomic clocks have proven it does.[/QUOTE]

Unless we are only actually imagining atomic clocks and constructing what they show us ...

 

[MeSci]

Susan something I think, sorry cheesebrain

Greenfield?