Discussion in 'Consciousness & Science' started by Troy, Dec 10, 2016.
Apologies if this has been posted before. A presentation by the DOPS team...
I guess this is a reasonable place to post this. A well produced podcast featuring many NDE researchers. Woerlee comes in at 28.42. Parnia refutes him or at least puts Woerlee's thoughts into perspective at 33.19. It's well worth a listen if you have an hour to spare. Happy new year to everyone (hope that doesn't sound corny). Maybe I should say, "I hope everyone has a happy new year !" It still doesn't look quite right but.....
Parnia has been quite active lately, this following a long period of media silence that extends to the beginning of AWARE II. And he doesn't seem any more negative about his project or his previous stances... Makes you wonder what he knows.
Edit: Just finished hearing. How intriguing that he flirts with immaterial consciousness (during his second intervention) this late in the game.
Was he negative before ?.. maybe but I would say more impartial (just my opinion). As to what he knows I guess we can only speculate. I feel this research is the most important area that science has ever addressed (as I've said before apologies for repeating myself) and I'm very confident (based on examining the literature for decades) that eventually he and others will get the conclusive evidence.
Got to be careful though, fundamentalist religious types would probably love to have survival 'rubber stamped.' I doubt they would pay attention to what appears to be the context of the whole experience (or most of them) and maybe use it as justification for their dogma. Don't know.
Nice program, which got at both sides of the issue (but nothing in between them). It seemed to be very much the same old positions, where on one side people believe the brain is perfectly isolated, or, on the other side, that 'self' exists separately from the brain.
I mean there is no way the brain can be perfectly isolated, otherwise we wouldn't be able to easily measure Elecromagnetic (EM) fields emanating from the brain using EEG on the surface of the scalp. If EM can go one way out through the skull, it can certainly go the other way. So the idea that the brain is a perfectly isolated, an idea you'll regularly hear neuroscientists repeat, or just assume when they are discussing these issues is a nonsense.
They might instead claim that there is no evidence that weak external EM fields can affect the brain. But there is, over the last 6 years we've discovered that our own EM fields are used to entrain our own neural networks, they are not simply the steam whiste of a train, an epiphemomena that has no effect on the train itself. Our EM fields effect our own brains future state in a feedback loop. The team that discovered this in 2010, made the clear statement that they believed the brains neural networks must be affected by ALL EM fields within which they are embedded. That includes ALL external environmental EM fields that intersect the brain's networks.
That the brain doesn't seem particularly affected by big powerful blunt EM fields like those eminating from everyday household equipment, like motors, transformers and power supplies, just goes to show how clever the brain is at filtering out incompatible fields.
More recent work seems to show that the brain is stochastic, that is the bizzare ability for a system to become better at teasing out a very weak signal from a noisy signal. The more additional noise that is pumped into a stochastic system the better it gets. The Stochastic effect is not well understood, and there is a lot of research going on in this area as it promises the ability to make super sensitive sensors. But at present it seems most effective in complex networks, and is most effective where the transmitting network is more compatible (alike) to the receiving network.
We also have plenty of evidence from behavioural studies to show patterned hyper-weak magnetic fields can affect the behaviour of birds and turtles. These fields are so weak, (upto 40,000 times weaker than the earth's local geomagnetic field) that they should be swamped by the background environmental magnetic noise. But they are not. And these fields are so weak we currently have no mechanism that can explain the effect we see.
We also have reversed studies, where they shield animals not just from all environmental electrical fields, but also shielding them from magnetic fields in specially constructed boxes, (which is difficult to achieve, because magnetic fields generally go through most material with very little distortion). Comparisons between animals behaviour before and after exposure to these magnetically shielded boxes is bizarre. Their behaviour deviates very significantly from control animals which were not magnetically shielded. Yet the reintroduction of a patterned hyper-weak artificially controlled Magnetic field source placed inside these magnetically shielded boxes, which can be controlled by the researcher can significantly reduce the bizarre behavioural effect. The team comment that whatever mechanism that could in future be proposed to explain this effect, it must take into account the hyper-weak nature of the affecting field.
However, all of these observations still only deal with what I suggest is still a local effect. But that local effect can modulate unique 3D spatiotemporal patterns in the brain's networks, that are produced from our own incoming sensory information.
It is these 3D patterns of activation that I suggest can become quantum coherent (additive) with any alike patterns, anywhere within spacetime. It is here that I think our conscious experience of our shared reality arises.
It's this sort of mechanism, that I believe is responsible for all our objective (averaged) everyday experiences, and is also responsible for all the odd subjective experiences that we experience as being dislocated in spacetime. That's the stuff we talk about on here. Somebody has an experience of something that is somebody else's. The further away they are from us in space or time, the more obvious the dislocated information becomes, and the more we scratch our heads about how this can be.
Max, thanks for aiming that at me but I'd only be waffling if I tried to deal with it. Stephen Wright would be a much better recipient, I'm sure. I am aware of course that birds and fish seem to be able to communicate in flocks, make turns in the sky/underwater all together which is amazing.Is it known how they do it, maybe it is and I've forgotten.
The crystal clear accurate vision reported by patients (from a perspective often above the scene of their resuscitation) seems to me to be something completely different and of a much more mysterious magnitude. The data reported just doesn't fit with your theory. You also have the problem of travelling through walls and down the hall way and then there's the seamless melding with the transcendental portion and much more.
I found this a very good and nuanced programme, Tim. I've also listened to another programme: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/refle...s-is-the-world-really-falling-apart-1.3898134 which was quite good, mainly because of the contribution of Janice Stein who was clued into what's actually happening whereas the other panelists were, frankly, elitist boors. I've bookmarked the site and will be listening to other programmes in the future. Thanks for the heads up.
He wasn't negative, he has always been very economic with his assertions. But one would expect that with the tighter controls, if AWARE II was failing his narrative would change.
I'm interested in seeing these studies.
Papers with links, and a video down this page...
This is a link to the 2010 Fröhlich & McCormick paper on endogenous EM fields entraining network activity...
If you read the post, you should see that none of my '...bizarre...' comments were to do with animal navigation. They were instead to do with Stochastic systems, and the pain reception/memory study.
And I've just got to say that I love the suitably scientific and disapproving tone of your '...awfully speculative...' phrase, although I'd have thought that would be a given for most posts on Skeptiko (and then some...) without anybody needing to say it... But, I must remember to try using that in my own responses to other people's ideas on Skeptiko... it gives ones posts such an air of grandeur.... Lol.
I don't read all of your posts any longer, your hyping of certain things gets increasingly dull. At the first mention of "hyper weak EM fields", I presuppose that you are reposting your ideas yet again and skip the rest. This was the case here, and since you have posted links to papers that discuss the reaction of mice to EM fields (being repelled, navigating a little maze, etc.), I figured these were the same.
Regardless, my comment was a response to him, so as not to fall into the same loop. By now, you should have noticed that I've yet to really support any concrete metaphysical ideas and have prodded the few guests that actually join the forum as possible, the last being Eric Fargo (if I remember correctly).
But, trying to point weak points in your ideas is useless, I learned that when you were adamant that "different shades of color" was unquestionably "black and white". Or when you avoided a direct response when questioned why your ideas only try to explain away part of the experience (the OBE), which can overlap with the "mystical" elements that you avoid (the MDs and RNs must have been high to "transmit" light beings and dead people). Or how long term premonition (i.e. "I met my unborn children") can take place in the exclusively "mystical" segment if the experience is modulated by information acquired from third parties. Ergo, I requested that my post was deleted shortly afterwards and a while before you responded to it, despite actually being directed at "LetsEat".
That's right, there is no colour. It arises by processing the luminosity of surfaces or, better yet the energy (at different wavelengths).
It's the OBE part, the veridical and verifiable part, that I'm most interested in, because it's difficult to dismiss as easily by other people as the rest of the NDE seems to be.
'Modulated' is probably the word here, but it's also difficult to know if the faces one saw years ago in an NDE, are the faces one knows now. That memory effect is well known (police lineups etc), so it's hard to use it as evidence when discussing it with anybody else.
I don't think that you remember the context of that conversation. It was about a blind woman describing what she could see during her NDE, "different shades of color", which you interpreted was monochromatic despite she having no previous concept of "color" and hence no real comparison to express herself. My posture was that "shades of color" was too vague to draw conclusions either way, but you insisted on it being "black and white".
The problem is that OBE part, the veridical and verifiable part, can be affected by the "mystical" part. Mr. A saw a person (?) beckoning to join her in a corner of the room before actually moving towards that same corner from where he witnessed the rest from a classical OBE perspective.
The characteristics of these memories has been studied by several researchers and proven particularly consistent, most likely not infallible but at least long lasting. But, even if that was not the case, dead siblings are also seen and some cases of that type and have been quoted here. Presumably those are tied together more quickly, while the memory is fresher. Peak in Darien cases would also be a form of this phenomena.
I remember Vicki's case pretty clearly as I did a lot of research on vision generally, and vision in the blind... It's you who appears to be misremembering... It was Vicki who Ring says was never able to discriminate colours during her OBE NDE, but only “…different shades of brightness…”.
The crux of the matter being that even if she saw anything resembling actual colors, lacking a psychological concept of it to serve as precedent would lead to this sort of ambiguity. My point was that we have no idea of what exactly she experienced, but apparently "different shades of brightness" (excuse me for not caring enough to dig the actual quote before) automatically means "monochrome" in your book.
We all see different spectrums of light (most with only slight variation, but with some very noticeable and common exemptions), and the real issue here was that for some reason you assume that combining all of the sensory information into a 'triangulated' flow would render these seamless experiences (as described by the actual NDErs) in all but Vicki's case, in which you insist that somehow her brain was rendering them like a 1950s sitcom. We are to assume that in all of the other cases none of the transmitters are color blind or even that they all have about the same degree of visual acuity (these are common conditions that lead to variations in the processin of sensory information between individuals).
If the blind patient was not able to discern color (presumably due to an underdevelopment in that brain region), then surely the other variations of sensory information should have an impact in the modulation and "fidelity" of the experience (the information being in coded in brains "hardwired" differently from the patient's own brain and each developed variably due to a host of practices, conditions and/or external elements and also compensating for different things). Yet, that is not reported, what *is* reported are vivid and seamless experiences as opposed to the superposition of fragmentary -and potentially contradicting (as would be the "color" information if one transmitter is color blind and the other is not)- sensory information.
You enjoy mocking 'floaty eyes', but then give a brain so underpowered that it's own EM fields are lowering to the point of being affected by external one the equally magical capacity to take this jumble of information and depurate it into a crystal clear, seamless experience... Unless you are blind, then you only see an old timey mage (I wonder if deaf people would "hear" in monosound) because apparently only 'normal' dying brains can put this jigsaw together and mold it into something coherent (without even noticing). But, I'm sure that you will never acknowledge that and I'm not interested in jumping back into an old circular argument.
No worries, Michael thanks for your link.
None of the issues you have raised are really issues as far as I can see. I'm guessing you don't properly understand colour perception, which arises internally through processing, and that there is no colour in the world.
Every prospective study has produced veridical evidence from patients in cardiac arrest (or in coma) so the study can't really fail IMHO. And I see no reason why someone won't eventually see the target picture.
Typoz has the right idea IMO with regard to Max's theory. He won't discuss it because there's nothing to discuss. However the forum would probably be duller without his "campaign" for the rights (writes) of endogenous fields.
Separate names with a comma.