Flat EEG and Neural activity

Everything we do to the brain affects the mind. We don't even know how to do something to the mind without going through the brain.

I could be wrong, of course.

~~ Paul
But the reverse is true as well. Things that happen to the mind affect the brain. Learned behaviors, meditation, even ndes can change the structure and functionality of the brain.
 
It appears for those involved with any kind of "non-mainstream" research, that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't either way.
It's not if and it's not damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Actually, it can be. The idea that an EEG measures the meaningful level of consciousness a person can have is in standard medical journals and practice in trauma centers. NDE arguers were using the same terms and data that anyone else had access to. This same information is used to determine when to stop recucitation attempts within hospitals, so to find if there's a double standard lets posit two questions:

Is an NDE researcher wrong for concluding survival because it appeared as though a person was as dead as necessary?

And, is a recucitator / trauma surgeon now in retroactive negligence for deciding to give up on a patient because of the readings of an insufficient instrument?

If the answer to both questions is not the same, you are probably guilty of enforcing a double standard.
 
You are mistaken about what is standard medical practice and in medical journals. For example, resuscitation is not stopped on the basis of EEG readings. EEG readings aren't even taken on patients undergoing resuscitation (if they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation).

Your questions are bizarrely wrong.

Linda
 
.
But the reverse is true as well. Things that happen to the mind affect the brain. Learned behaviors, meditation, even ndes can change the structure and functionality of the brain.

Unless of course those things are inseparably "brain happenings" in which case they don't "affect" them, they are them. However, materialism is not the only interpretation of that state of affairs. Paul is correct in that there isn't a single function of mind that isn't coupled to some kind of brain activity and can be damaged out of existence by a brain injury. We can even see this damage and loss of mind happening in tragic slow motion in the case of Alzheimer's patients.
 
But the reverse is true as well. Things that happen to the mind affect the brain. Learned behaviors, meditation, even ndes can change the structure and functionality of the brain.
Those things aren't happening to the mind, they are happening to the brain. I'd be happy to change my tune if you could point to the mind that's being affected, independently of a brain.

~~ Paul
 
It' doesn't matter because neuroscience wasn't and isn't looking to prove life after death.

I love it when you guys dig your heels in like this with your circular logic. It just highlights the absurd lengths you will go to, to pin "Pseudo-science" on people and studies you have a personal belief issue with... independent of the actual facts.

Your argument is NDE proponents and researchers who were claiming there is no brain activity where we may now have evidence there is... well they are Pseudoscientists who should cease immediately from their false claims.... even though they were only practising what Science and Neurologists told us.

Neurologists though who's actually job it is to find out, have claimed for years that there was no brain activity where we may now have evidence there is not... but for years have been making false claims.... somehow that's different because they "aren't looking to prove life after death". (Still not sure what the relevance of that is)


abe-simpson-gif.gif
 
I love it when you guys dig your heels in like this with your circular logic. It just highlights the absurd lengths you will go to, to pin "Pseudo-science" on people and studies you have a personal belief issue with... independent of the actual facts.

Who other than yourself has mentioned "pseudo-science" in this thread? Or on this forum for that matter? I can't recall any of the reg skeptics making that accusation.

Neurologists though who's actually job it is to find out, have claimed for years that there was no brain activity where we may now have evidence there is not... but for years have been making false claims.... somehow that's different because they "aren't looking to prove life after death". (Still not sure what the relevance of that is)

AFAIK neuroscientists were well aware of the limits of EEGs measurements so I'm not sure where you are getting your understanding from. In any event, there have been a few studies in the last year or so that have broadened our understanding of what kind of activity might be going on even when there is a flat EEG.

In any event, what does it matter what was believed in the past? Neuroscience changes on a daily basis.
 
Who other than yourself has mentioned "pseudo-science" in this thread? Or on this forum for that matter? I can't recall any of the reg skeptics making that accusation.

You don't have to use the word "Pseudo-Science" to be making the claim that someone is practicising it. I refer you to :

The point Craig, is there's brain activity where people some of which hang out here claim there is not.

and then

It' doesn't matter because neuroscience wasn't and isn't looking to prove life after death.

Quite clearly 2 statements aimed at discrediting the work of those studying NDE because "our claims" are incorrect. Yet the same claims by Neuroscientists are perfectly ok because they aren't studying NDE's aren't "looking to prove life after death".

It's clear what is being intimated here. One group is practicising Science and the other isn't.

AFAIK neuroscientists were well aware of the limits of EEGs measurements so I'm not sure where you are getting your understanding from. In any event, there have been a few studies in the last year or so that have broadened our understanding of what kind of activity might be going on even when there is a flat EEG.

In any event, what does it matter what was believed in the past? Neuroscience changes on a daily basis.

Actually all Science changes on a daily basis. That's why it shouldn't ever matter what was "believed in the past". Science is a method. It should be free from bias and any prec-conceived ideals such as Materialism. So in effect there should never be statements such as "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" ever being used within Science and by those preaching Science. Do you agree?
 
I'm gonna attempt to summarize the whole NDE debate (from my perspective) before this thread goes to 500 pages on repeat, I know I'll fail, but that's where the fun is at IMO.

So, at first the mainstream position is that brain activity is impossible during flat EEG, therefore NDEs simply do not happen.
After too many people wrongly insisted that they were having some kind of experience, it was reluctantly agreed that they honestly think they did. The poor misguided bastards.

The position shifts to, well it must be happening as the brain is not flat EEGed.
It must be happening while it's going down or coming back up.

Then reports came in with verified temporal specific events that happened during flat EEG.
So the position moves to EEG does not = brain death, therefore it's still brain function, or malfunction.
But since the brain is malfunctioning from a lack of oxygen or blood, it must be hallucinations.
Then it was found that experiences are highly lucid and even more "real" than actual memories, as well as containing verifiable information.

So the position moves to the brain is in fact NOT malfunctioning. It's capable of lucid experiences while extremely compromised, it could even perfectly reconstruct/hallucinate conversations, layouts of rooms, locations of dentures, lost tennis shoes and other things. I've even heard certain people explain the tennis shoe as the brain using 3d audio or a complex system of reflections to reconstruct 3d environments! All while the neocortex is offline! All the while being apparently unconscious! Maybe they're faking their cardiac arrests or car accidents in some kind of elaborate practical joke! Maybe the brain "Retains" all this information during flat EEG, then gets to work reconstructing them AFTER the surgery?
I hope the neuroscientists don't find out about this because most of them are still naively thinking that the neocortex is supposed to be responsible for characteristic "higher human" functions. Now it's not neocortex, maybe the hippocampus can do it too?

But wait, NDEs can happen to people merely scared, or in the vicinity of the dying, or simply sitting there doing nothing. So apparently a healthy brain can have these similar "malfunctions", or is it "superfunctions"? Bad brain!

So the current position is then that the brain is highly plastic, perhaps both spatially and temporally, maybe it's SO plastic that you don't need the sufficient blood flow, or oxygen supply(cardiac arrest anyone?), or the neocortex, or any region commonly known to be responsible for higher cognitive functions like having conversations with people you know. Come to think of it, when I'm conversing with people most of the time my brain really isn't working at all so it makes perfect sense.

BUT WAIT there's more, some reports include information the patient did not have prior to their traumatic NDE, or at least extremely improbable to have gotten like the medical procedures used on them. Well it must be leaked through ordinary means. (Or my favorite alternate explanation, that they saw it in an episode of ER which we all know is so technical and accurate.)

So in summary:
The brain could, while being healthy and meditating, or sharing a dying experience or child birth, or while being taken offline by lack of blood or oxygen, or an anesthetic, or during flat EEG with or without deep brain function, or while coming back online after trauma, hallucinates or reconstructs a hyper lucid experience that is rated to be as real or more real than real memories, which sometimes includes verifiable information about events that happened during flat EEG that the patient probably did not have knowledge of before hand.

Nah I'm just kidding, of course that's not the most current skeptical position, that would be silly.
The skeptical position which had been "subtly hinted at" in this thread is that there is no such thing as NDEs and that we're just shoe-horning a wide range of experiences into this label now and that people simply under, over, or misinterpret some very ordinary or extraordinary experiences. In fact MOST people don't have NDEs. Or they do but don't talk about it, which just proves how bland they really are. Or maybe they are extraordinary but is something else all together from NDE which we have no name for but is sure to have a physiological basis. So I don't even know what the big deal is really.

There I think I have covered all the basis.

Now we're all the way back at square one, wasn't that a fun ride?

p.s. I know no one here puts up skeptical arguments such as these, we're too subtle for that.
 
Last edited:
That's why I made my comment, then notified the mods about it, and Andy agreed and did this.

EDIT: Oops, I notice it's still in both forums. This is probably a mistake on Andy's part.
When I suggested such threads be moved, I thought this one was in the C&S forum. Anyway, the suggestion still stands.

There is an assumption with our per-forum rules that I am always aware of which forum I'm in. It doesn't work for me.

~~ Paul
 
I'm gonna attempt to summarize the whole NDE debate (from my perspective) before this thread goes to 500 pages on repeat, I know I'll fail, but that's where the fun is at IMO.

So, at first the mainstream position is that brain activity is impossible during flat EEG, therefore NDEs simply do not happen.
After too many people wrongly insisted that they were having some kind of experience, it was reluctantly agreed that they honestly think they did. The poor misguided bastards.

The position shifts to, well it must be happening as the brain is not flat EEGed.
It must be happening while it's going down or coming back up.

Then reports came in with verified temporal specific events that happened during flat EEG.
So the position moves to EEG does not = brain death, therefore it's still brain function, or malfunction.
But since the brain is malfunctioning from a lack of oxygen or blood, it must be hallucinations.
Then it was found that experiences are highly lucid and even more "real" than actual memories, as well as containing verifiable information.

So the position moves to the brain is in fact NOT malfunctioning. It's capable of lucid experiences while extremely compromised, it could even perfectly reconstruct/hallucinate conversations, layouts of rooms, locations of dentures, lost tennis shoes and other things. I've even heard certain people explain the tennis shoe as the brain using 3d audio or a complex system of reflections to reconstruct 3d environments! All while the neocortex is offline! All the while being apparently unconscious! Maybe they're faking their cardiac arrests or car accidents in some kind of elaborate practical joke! Maybe the brain "Retains" all this information during flat EEG, then gets to work reconstructing them AFTER the surgery?
I hope the neuroscientists don't find out about this because most of them are still naively thinking that the neocortex is supposed to be responsible for characteristic "higher human" functions. Now it's not neocortex, maybe the hippocampus can do it too?

But wait, NDEs can happen to people merely scared, or in the vicinity of the dying, or simply sitting there doing nothing. So apparently a healthy brain can have these similar "malfunctions", or is it "superfunctions"? Bad brain!

So the current position is then that the brain is highly plastic, perhaps both spatially and temporally, maybe it's SO plastic that you don't need the sufficient blood flow, or oxygen supply(cardiac arrest anyone?), or the neocortex, or any region commonly known to be responsible for higher cognitive functions like having conversations with people you know. Come to think of it, when I'm conversing with people most of the time my brain really isn't working at all so it makes perfect sense.

BUT WAIT there's more, some reports include information the patient did not have prior to their traumatic NDE, or at least extremely improbable to have gotten like the medical procedures used on them. Well it must be leaked through ordinary means. (Or my favorite alternate explanation, that they saw it in an episode of ER which we all know is so technical and accurate.)

So in summary:
The brain could, while being healthy and meditating, or sharing a dying experience or child birth, or while being taken offline by lack of blood or oxygen, or an anesthetic, or during flat EEG with or without deep brain function, or while coming back online after trauma, hallucinates or reconstructs a hyper lucid experience that is rated to be as real or more real than real memories, which sometimes includes verifiable information about events that happened during flat EEG that the patient probably did not have knowledge of before hand.

Nah I'm just kidding, of course that's not the most current skeptical position, that would be silly.
The skeptical position which had been "subtly hinted at" in this thread is that there is no such thing as NDEs and that we're just shoe-horning a wide range of experiences into this label now and that people simply under, over, or misinterpret some very ordinary or extraordinary experiences. In fact MOST people don't have NDEs. Or they do but don't talk about it, which just proves how bland they really are. Or maybe they are extraordinary but is something else all together from NDE which we have no name for but is sure to have a physiological basis. So I don't even know what the big deal is really.

There I think I have covered all the basis.

Now we're all the way back at square one, wasn't that a fun ride?

p.s. I know no one here puts up skeptical arguments such as these, we're too subtle for that.

That doesn't seem to be a summary of anything which has been said here. For example, nobody here would make the claim "then reports came in with verified temporal specific events that happened during flat EEG", since there have never been any verified temporal specific events that happened during a flat EEG. And nobody here has claimed there are no such things as NDEs. Quite the opposite.

I realize you were just trying to be funny, but does it really help this thread to make it look like proponents don't really understand how neuroscientists use EEGs, the specific concerns raised by non-proponents, or the limits of NDE research to date?

Linda
 
When I suggested such threads be moved, I thought this one was in the C&S forum.
It was in the C&S forum - but my point is it belonged in the BvS forum and Andy agreed.

There is an assumption with our per-forum rules that I am always aware of which forum I'm in. It doesn't work for me.
Just take a gander at the top of this page, above where the title of the thread is, you'll see which forum we're in.
 
...since there have never been any verified temporal specific events that happened during a flat EEG.

This is false. I read that some cases had temporal markers that allowed us to conclude that NDEs occurred during the flat EEG.
 
This is false. I read that some cases had temporal markers that allowed us to conclude that NDEs occurred during the flat EEG.
What flat EEG? The problem is that we only very rarely have had an EEG reading (let alone a flat one). Can you give an example of an EEG reading and a temporal marker?

Linda
 
It was in the C&S forum - but my point is it belonged in the BvS forum and Andy agreed.
Oops, duh. I meant to say that I thought it was in the BvS forum and should be moved to C&S. If assumptions are required of posters, then a thread should be somewhere other than BvS. However, I think the idea of different rules for different forums is confusing:

Just take a gander at the top of this page, above where the title of the thread is, you'll see which forum we're in.
I know that I can find out where I am, but I will forget to do so. Requirements for assumptions should be based on Mod+ and the opening post, not on the forum. Too late now.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
Back
Top