Possible hits on target during AWARE?

"I'm still incredibly wary about these conclusions"

That's fine, it's good to be wary. I was ...but after studying them for decades I'm not now.

And yes, there won't be any announcement on the National news :) because there would be outrage form the guardians of science who would laugh at Parnia and deride his so called study. Just wait until his paper is published to see the vitriol that will emerge from the sour faced materialists. He's going to need a thick skin and a good minder.

I fear his paper won't say much. But I'm open. The thing is though, if Parnia is right in his conclusions, then the implications are staggering.
 
I fear his paper won't say much. But I'm open. The thing is though, if Parnia is right in his conclusions, then the implications are staggering.

I disagree, it already has.

He has a collection of people that experienced consciousness without brain function >.>ADE's ...that in itself is remarkable IMHO
 
I'm still incredibly wary about these conclusions, and am nowhere near as convinced as Parnia is.
I think you would have to have walked in Parnia's shoes and followed the journey with him, in order to fully agree with him. The rest of us are outsiders, we can only watch how Parnia's views have shifted gradually, almost imperceptibly at times, from considering that these experiences are just an illusion, to accepting there there is something real. He can never satisfy everyone. For some people he is too cautious, while for others he has already gone too far. When pressed, I've heard him state in interviews more than once that he doesn't have any specific viewpoint or opinion on these matters, and that he merely tells us what the scientific evidence is saying.
 
...imagine turning on the radio in the morning and hearing John Humphreys say "scientists have found evidence that human beings consciousness continues after they die...

Parnia is able to make the sensational sounding claim that 'consciousness continues after we die', because he redefines cardiac arrest as death. Great bit of spin by Parnia to grab peoples attraction, but that's all it is.
 
I think you would have to have walked in Parnia's shoes and followed the journey with him, in order to fully agree with him. The rest of us are outsiders, we can only watch how Parnia's views have shifted gradually, almost imperceptibly at times, from considering that these experiences are just an illusion, to accepting there there is something real. He can never satisfy everyone. For some people he is too cautious, while for others he has already gone too far. When pressed, I've heard him state in interviews more than once that he doesn't have any specific viewpoint or opinion on these matters, and that he merely tells us what the scientific evidence is saying.

I just feel there's a catch somewhere. But hopefully I'm wrong.
 
Parnia is able to make the sensational sounding claim that 'consciousness continues after we die', because he redefines cardiac arrest as death. Great bit of spin by Parnia to grab peoples attraction, but that's all it is.

No, Max, cardiac arrest IS the same as death, it's a medical fact and just because you keep repeating your opinion is not going to change medicine.
 
Cardiac Arrest & Clinical Death


Although people have heard of the phenomena of cardiac arrest, most do not realise that cardiac arrest is synonymous with death. These two terms essentially mean the same thing. Most people see cardiac arrest like the glorious moment in various television medical programmes in which doctors try fervently to try and save somebody’s life and prevent them from dying but in fact what they don’t realise is that the point at which we die is when the heart stops beating, the person stops breathing, and the brain shuts down which are exactly the same criteria as a cardiac arrest. The only difference between a cardiac arrest and death is the definition used by the medical staff. When medical staff intervene with someone who has just died and try to restart their heart, it is called a cardiac arrest. If they do not succeed in restarting the heart and all resuscitation efforts are stopped, then they will pronounce the person as officially dead. In actuality, the two are the same phenomena and cardiac arrest resuscitation simply refers to the first part of death when doctors and nurses attempt to restart the heart in someone who has just died.
 
Cardiac Arrest & Clinical Death
Although people have heard of the phenomena of cardiac arrest, most do not realise that cardiac arrest is synonymous with death. These two terms essentially mean the same thing. Most people see cardiac arrest like the glorious moment in various television medical programmes in which doctors try fervently to try and save somebody’s life and prevent them from dying but in fact what they don’t realise is that the point at which we die is when the heart stops beating, the person stops breathing, and the brain shuts down which are exactly the same criteria as a cardiac arrest. The only difference between a cardiac arrest and death is the definition used by the medical staff. When medical staff intervene with someone who has just died and try to restart their heart, it is called a cardiac arrest. If they do not succeed in restarting the heart and all resuscitation efforts are stopped, then they will pronounce the person as officially dead. In actuality, the two are the same phenomena and cardiac arrest resuscitation simply refers to the first part of death when doctors and nurses attempt to restart the heart in someone who has just died.

I'd hardly expect anything else from the Horizon web site... lol...
 
I'd hardly expect anything else from the Horizon web site... lol...

Why ? Are you saying that Parnia is wrong ? He is a critical care medical professional with an MD and a PHD. I don't have either, do you ?
 
Why ? Are you saying that Parnia is wrong ? He is a critical care medical professional with an MD and a PHD. I don't have either, do you ?

Tim, you can go round and round all day on this question. Parnia wishes to redefine cardiac arrest as death. If you also want to claim that cardiac arrest is 'death', based on what Parnia says, you also have to accept that he is redefining it. There is nothing particularly wrong with what Parnia says, as long as you accept that he has previously redefined it. Alternatively, you may also use another precise term 'clinical death', in place of 'cardiac arrest' without objection from me.

Please don't bother trying to convince me that the redefinition to the singular term 'death' that Parnia is talking about, is the same as the common everyday concept of 'death' that I'm familiar with, for example 'my dog has died', 'my grandfather has died', an idea of death being a finality from which one cannot return.

Parnia's redefinition allows him to make the sensational sounding claim that 'consciousness continues after we die'. It's a great bit of spin by Parnia to grab peoples attention, but that's all it is.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that Woerlee did/does indeed study the NDE phenomenon, and he knows a hell of a lot about it. However, he looks at the phenomenon from a strictly ideologically based materialistic viewpoint: there is no such thing as a soul, therefore no separation of body and soul, brain and mind are the same, etc etc. Hence, everything else that does not concur with his views is nonsense. And every medic who does not agree with his views is a moron. That is the worst part of it: a total disrespect for people like Parnia, Fenwick, Van Lommel, Greyson.... He says that they have no understanding whatsoever of science, let alone medical science.

I am not saying Woerlee doesn't study the phenomena in terms of reading the research. Does he actually carry out research though or is he simply an armchair critic?
 
Tim, you can go round and round all day on this question. Parnia wishes to redefine cardiac arrest as death. If you also want to claim that cardiac arrest is 'death', based on what Parnia says, you also have to accept that he is redefining it. There is nothing particularly wrong with what Parnia says, as long as you accept that he has previously redefined it. Alternatively, you may also use another precise term 'clinical death', in place of 'cardiac arrest' without objection from me.

Please don't bother trying to convince me that the redefinition to the singular term 'death' that Parnia is talking about, is the same as the common everyday concept of 'death' that I'm familiar with, for example 'my dog has died', 'my grandfather has died', an idea of death being a finality from which one cannot return.

Parnia's redefinition allows him to make the sensational sounding claim that 'consciousness continues after we die'. It's a great bit of spin by Parnia to grab peoples attraction, but that's all it is.

Parnia isn't redefining anything, Max. It simply is a fact which you should accept but for some reason best known to yourself, you refuse to. Fine but Cardiac arrest IS DEATH, after a cardiac arrest the patient has just died. He may not stay dead if he/she can be brought back but nevertheless that person is dead. If he/she wasn't dead, there would be no reason to intervene....they (the paramedics) would just say this person is not dead so we don't need to do anything.

If you are going to contradict Parnia, you are going to have to have the qualifications to back it up. If you haven't then I'm afraid it's just your opinion and I find it ridiculous and untenable that you think that Parnia is playing loose with the facts to somehow gain an advantage to prove survival.
 
Copied from the American heart Association

Cardiac arrest is caused when the heart's electrical system malfunctions. In cardiac arrest death results when the heart suddenly stops working properly. This may be caused by abnormal, or irregular, heart rhythms (called arrhythmias). A common arrhythmia in cardiac arrest is ventricular fibrillation. This is when the heart's lower chambers suddenly start beating chaotically and don't pump blood. Death occurs within minutes after the heart stops. Cardiac arrest may be reversed if CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) is performed and a defibrillator is used to shock the heart and restore a normal heart rhythm within a few minutes.
 
If you are going to contradict Parnia...<snip>

Lol... :)

For anyone who is interested, I've often recommended the article below, published on the Linacre Centre's web site as an informative primer to issues around definition of 'death'... It's a bit slanted towards the issue of organ donation, but it gives a good historical background to the changing definitions within the UK and is relevant from a clinical perspective...

http://www.linacre.org/death.html
 
Last edited:
Lol... :)

For anyone who is interested, I've often recommended the article below, published on the Linacre Centre's web site as an informative primer to issues around definition of 'death'... It's a bit slanted towards the issue of organ donation, but it gives a good historical background to the changing definitions issued by the BMJ, and is relevant from a clinical perspective...

http://www.linacre.org/death.html

Maybe you should asked the Archbishop of Canterbury, Max LOL ;-0
 
I rest my case... lol...

Yes I left that in Max so that I could finally get it through to you. They are talking about irreversible death at that point if nothing is done. But before several minutes have passed ie 15 seconds after the heart stops, that person is already dead. You've heard the expression haven't you, he dropped dead.
 
When it comes to the concept of death, it's almost analogous to particle physics, where something can be both a particle and a wave. Similarly (but not for the same reason, I don't think), death can be viewed as both an instant and as a process. However the "death as a process" view is a relatively new concept, and along with it comes all sorts of ambiguity.

But for ordinary people such as myself, it's still a moment. When my own father died, I was there, he stopped breathing, I checked his pulse, that was it. After that we called the doctor, but he merely confirmed the cause of death as "cardiac arrest" which is very frequently put on death certificates but is largely meaningless - for example my father had suffered from a serious illness and there were multiple factors.
 
Back
Top