Upcoming Interview: Matthew Alper -- The "God" Part of the Brain

#1
looking forward to hashing things out with Matthew next month :)

"God" Part of the Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of Human

p.g. 202
One key to answering this question comes through the research of a Dr. Karl Jansen, who has found that “near-death experiences can be induced by using the dissociative drug ketamine.”100 Dr. Jansen’s report goes on to state that, “It is now clear that NDEs are due to the blockade of brain receptors (drug binding sites) for the neurotransmitter glutamate. These binding sites are called the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors. Conditions which precipitate NDEs, (i.e., low oxygen, low blood flow, low blood sugar) have been shown to release a flood of glutamate, over-activating NMDA receptors.

https://smile.amazon.com/Ketamine-D...s=jensen+ketamine&qid=1579372424&sr=8-1-spell

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2019/02/Talgiazucchi-CC.pdf
 
#2
page 200:
And what precipitates an NDE? NDEs almost always occur as a result of decreased blood flow to the brain and/or lack of oxygen, usually from shock induced either from severe infection (septic shock), from myocardial ischemia (cardiogenic shock), cardiac arrest, or the effects of anesthesia. Apparently, NDEs are integrally linked to physical—not spiritual—realities. One of the most common misperceptions regarding NDEs is that when we have one we literally die and are then restored to life, something which is simply not possible. For example, some people mistakenly believe that when our heart has stopped, we are dead. Contrarily, the heart is merely a pump that sends oxygenated blood to the rest of the body. It is not until approximately six minutes after a cell has been deprived of its normal oxygen supply that it truly dies. Not until the cells in a person’s brain have died are we truly deceased, a death from which no living organism has ever returned.
 
#5
Karl Jansen also once stated the following...

“After 12 years of studying ketamine, I now believe that there most definitely is a soul that is independent of experience. It exists when we begin, and may persist when we end. Ketamine is a door to a place we cannot normally get to; it is definitely not evidence that such a place does not exist.”

Jansen, Karl. (1997). Response to Commentaries on “The Ketamine Model of the Near-Death Experience.” Journal of Near-Death Studies. 16, 79-95.
 
Last edited:
#6
Karl Jansen also once stated the following...

“After 12 years of studying ketamine, I now believe that there most definitely is a soul that is independent of experience. It exists when we begin, and may persist when we end. Ketamine is a door to a place we cannot normally get to; it is definitely not evidence that such a place does not exist.”

Jansen, Karl. (1997). Response to Commentaries on “The Ketamine Model of the Near-Death Experience.” Journal of Near-Death Studies. 16, 79-95.
agreed. it's also interesting to the angle that Greyson and other NDE researchers are taking... very encouraging... further evidence that these are real scientists exploring the boundaries of what they know. it will be interesting to see whether Alpert is able to follow along.
 
#7
Karl Jansen also once stated the following...

“After 12 years of studying ketamine, I now believe that there most definitely is a soul that is independent of experience. It exists when we begin, and may persist when we end. Ketamine is a door to a place we cannot normally get to; it is definitely not evidence that such a place does not exist.”

Jansen, Karl. (1997). Response to Commentaries on “The Ketamine Model of the Near-Death Experience.” Journal of Near-Death Studies. 16, 79-95.
interesting thx.
 
#8
https://leapsmag.com/coming-back-from-the-dead-is-no-longer-science-fiction/


Last week’s earth-shattering announcement by neuroscientist Dr. Nenad Sestan and his team out of Yale, published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature, provides further evidence that a time gap exists between actual death and cellular death in cadavers. In this seminal study, these researchers were able to restore partial function in pig brains four hours after their heads were severed from their bodies. These results follow from the pioneering work in 2001 of geneticist Fred Gage and colleagues from the Salk Institute, also published in Nature, which demonstrated the possibility of growing human brain cells in the laboratory by taking brain biopsies from cadavers in the mortuary up to 21 hours post-mortem.

The once black-and-white line between life and death is now blurrier than ever. Some people may argue this means these humans and pigs weren’t truly “dead.” However, that is like saying the people who were guillotined during the French Revolution were also not dead. Clearly, that is not the case. They were all dead. The problem is not death; it’s our reliance on an outdated philosophical, rather than biological, notion of death.

====
1579457892623.png
 
Last edited:
#9
https://leapsmag.com/coming-back-from-the-dead-is-no-longer-science-fiction/

Were they “dead”? Yes, according to all the criteria we have ever used. But they were able to be brought back before their “dead” bodies had reached the point of permanent, irreversible cellular damage. This reflects the period of death for all of us. So rather than a “near-death experience,” I prefer a new terminology to describe these cases — “an actual-death experience.” These survivors’ unique experiences are providing eyewitness testimonies of what we will all be likely to experience when we die.
Such an experience reportedly includes seeing a warm light, the presence of a compassionate perfect individual, deceased relatives, a review of their lives, a judgment of their actions and intentions as they pertain to their humanity, and in some cases a sensation of seeing doctors and nurses working to resuscitate them.
Are these experiences compatible with hallucinations or illusions? No — in part, because these people have described real, verifiable events, which, by definition are not hallucinations, and in part, because their experiences are not compatible with confused and delirious memories that characterize oxygen deprivation.
The challenge for us scientifically is understanding how this is possible at a time when all our science tells us the brain shuts down.
For instance, it is hard to classify a structured meaningful review of one’s life and one’s humanity as hallucinatory or illusory. Instead, these experiences represent a new understanding of the overall human experience of death. As an intensive care unit physician for more than 10 years, I have seen numerous cases where these reports have been corroborated by my colleagues. In short, these survivors have been known to come back with reports of full consciousness, with lucid, well-structured thought processes and memory formation.
The challenge for us scientifically is understanding how this is possible at a time when all our science tells us the brain shuts down. The fact that these experiences occur is a paradox and suggests the undiscovered entity we call the “self,” “consciousness,” or “psyche” – the thing that makes us who we are – may not become annihilated at the point of so-called death.
 
Last edited:
#10
agreed. it's also interesting to the angle that Greyson and other NDE researchers are taking... very encouraging... further evidence that these are real scientists exploring the boundaries of what they know. it will be interesting to see whether Alpert is able to follow along.
Well he could certainly be CLOBBERED with the Parnia article you gave us--huge thx for that one, Alex!
 
#11
There is Nothing Paranormal About Near-Death ... - Skeptiko

Interview with NDE researcher Dr. Jan Holden unravels the claim, “there is nothing paranormal about near-death experiences.”

Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with University of North Texas professor, Dr. Jan Holden, co-author of, The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences. During the interview Holden discusses her research into near-death experiences:

Alex Tsakiris: I wanted you to help me work through this paper titled, “There is Nothing Paranormal About Near-Death Experiences.”

Let me start out with the first question, what are they reporting on here? What’s the news? Have they done any original research in this paper?

Dr. Holden: I didn’t see any original research. What I saw was a compilation of theories and results that have been published for quite some time, and have been answered in—you mentioned The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences.

What I noticed about this article is that it’s citing a lot of old sources that have been responded to, and they did not even mention, let alone respond to, those responses.

Alex Tsakiris: Let’s get to the meat of their paper—I’ll give you this quote: “Contrary to popular belief, research suggests that there is nothing paranormal about these experiences. Instead, near-death experiences are the manifestation of normal brain function gone awry.”

I know from your continuing education course on near-death experience science there are at least 10 prospective NDE studies with in-hospitals patients. I don’t think one of them would support this conclusion. What research are they citing to support their claim?

Dr. Holden: I don’t know. The material that’s out there actually supports a different conclusion. To quote my colleague Bruce Greyson, “If you ignore everything paranormal about NDEs then it’s easy to conclude that there is nothing paranormal about them.”
 
#12
I know I'm piling a lot of stuff in this thread but if you check out matthew's book you can see that he's a legit guy... so the fact that he's whiffed re the biological robot in a meaningless universe NDE connection is worth fully exploring.
 
#15
Contrarily, the heart is merely a pump that sends oxygenated blood to the rest of the body. It is not until approximately six minutes after a cell has been deprived of its normal oxygen supply that it truly dies.
Robots are human creations so there are no biological robots if consciousness exists. The phrase is merely a nod to physicalism that we can understand ourselves within that limited framework. Given consciousness is where you start, how do you explain to this guy he is wrong if he doesn't have that premise?

You cannot. Neither can he. Why not instead admit what we don't know. And there is so much there in those statements that are not known.
 
#18
165. Dr. Caroline Watt Defends, There is Nothing Paranormal About Near-Death Experiences
by Alex Tsakiris | Mar 20 | Near-Death Experience | 0 comments
Share68
Tweet
68SHARES
Interview with Parapsychology researcher Dr. Caroline Watt explains why, despite criticism, she maintains, “there is nothing paranormal about near-death experiences.”
Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with University of Edinburgh professor Dr. Caroline Watt, co-author of, There is nothing paranormal about near-death experiences: how neuroscience can explain seeing bright lights, meeting the dead, or being convinced you are one of them. During the interview Watt discusses her research into near-death experiences:
Alex Tsakiris: The other thing that upset me about the paper was the way it was picked up by so many science publications; Scientific America, NPR, BBC, Discovery, Discovery News. It’s not a strong paper. Yet, it gets echoed back through the mainstream science media as some kind of breakthrough about near-death experiences. Even though it directly contradicts all the leading researchers in the NDE field.
Dr. Caroline Watt: The leading researchers in the NDE field may publish their papers and have them reported as well. It’s an open forum. If it says something interesting, then it will be reported. Everybody can have a say. It’s not like I have some kind of privileged access.
Alex Tsakiris: I’m not suggesting that. I’m saying that what gets picked up and perpetuated through the science media is reflective of the current position, even if that position isn’t supported by the best data.
I’m saying your paper got traction even though there’s not a lot behind it. I’m saying you cited references incorrectly. And you referenced skeptics like Dr. Susan Blackmore who admits to not being current in the field.
Dr. Caroline Watt: As I said, it was intended to be a provocative piece. It’s not claiming to be balanced. The paper, if it wasn’t limited to two or three pages, I could have dealt more thoroughly with many different aspects because there’s more to near-death experiences then the dying brain hypothesis. It would have been a longer and more in-depth paper, but that wasn’t the paper that we wrote.
 
Top