Life after death

AtomicHorror

wuzziwig wrote: »

So does that mean I take off the cilice and hair shirt and get up off my knees praying for forgiveness then?

If you're into those things I see no reason why you should let a little bit of science stop you.

Sclosages

osarusan wrote: »

I put my head underwater in the bath last night. If I hadn't taken it out again, I wouldn't have lived to tell the tale. So, I was dead.

No ya lug ya. You weren't dead. Your heart had not stopped while you put your head under water.

GLaDOS

Sclosages wrote: »

They were dead! If no-one had resuscitated them, they wouldn't have lived to tell the tale. So, they were dead.

Nope, they were nearly dead, insanely close to dead maybe. But they weren't dead. Death is final.

The study itself is quite interesting and says a lot about conciousness as you approach death, pity the Telegraph mangled it.

smcgiff

Sclosages wrote: »

They were dead! If no-one had resuscitated them, they wouldn't have lived to tell the tale. So, they were dead.

Read seamus' s post above, and come back to us... if brain function has restarted

Sclosages

smcgiff wrote: »

Read seamus' s post above, and come back to us... if brain function has restarted

I didn't initiate the study. I didn't write the article.
I found the study interesting.

Sclosages

What are Seamus' credentials?
Did he participate in the study?
Could Seamus re-write the article to reflect the 'reality' of the findings?

The_Valeyard

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

Is there wifi there?

Probably better reception than the Midlands.

dd972

There's a joke that in Heaven the chefs are French and the police English, in Hell it's the reverse...:pac:

nozzferrahhtoo

Sclosages wrote: »

They state in the article that there is no brain function once the heart stops?

It is hard to know what the article is trying to say, which I guess is the result of having science illiterate people write science articles, which alas happens all too often in our media and is something Ben Goldacre has lamented at length in the past.

For example the opening blurb of the article refers to "Clinical death" and then in the second paragraph of the article says "The brain has shut down completely".

The two are not the same thing. The author should learn which one she is trying to talk about and stick with it, or at least adumbrate the differences as she understands them and then make clear which one she is using and why.

The article also says nothing about HOW certain things were established. It says 40% of patients described having awareness while clinically dead. How did they establish this? They took their word for it maybe? How did they establish the memories and/or experiences of the patients actually were during the time period they claim they were?

It sounds like the whole study was just anecdotes without a single control used to verify any of it. So the study tells us nothing new at all. Just more anecdotes to add to the innumerable ones we have already.

The claim from Sam Parnia that the brain can not function at all when the heart stops, is simply false too. There has to be a period of heart death before brain death comes. Sam however is a known proponent of OBE and NDE and the after life. He really.... really really.... wants it to be true but has no evidence it actually is.

In fact it was Parnia who attempted recently to verify OBE by doing a controlled study. The results of which I have never managed to find, likely because it gave him no positive results so he ditched or buried it.

His approach was to do a double blind depositing of unmissable objects in places in random operating rooms where people having OBE in typical locations (above the operating table being the most common) could see them, but no one else would know they are there. But the objects would be so incongruous to the environment you simply could not miss it.

So far I have heard of NO positive result. Not even one. If even _one_ person came back and said "I was floating over there.... out of my body..... and did you know there is a large LED display on that cupboard there with the number 545 on it?" or "I was floating over there and.... you are not going to believe this.... over there on that storage unit there is..... I feel weird even saying it..... an artificial bonsai tree made entirely of pink sex toys"...... I would sit up and take notice that MAYBE there is something going on here.

But no. Not. One. Positive. Result.

But anecdotes in non controlled environments abound, all based on people swearing blind that the patient has information no one believes they could or should have.

Sclosages wrote: »

Eh, they were dead.

As above. Clinical death != Death.

Sclosages wrote: »

How can you explain someone dead, lying with eyes closed presumably, being able to describe everything that happened in the three minutes before they resuscitated him?

Thats my issue. You would have to establish that that actually _did_ happen before making demands people explain it. However the post from seamus will teach you many things.

Sclosages wrote: »

They were dead! If no-one had resuscitated them, they wouldn't have lived to tell the tale. So, they were dead.

You have a funny definition of "dead" that no one I have met before uses. Certainly no one in the scientific or medical community.

Sclosages wrote: »

I found the study interesting.

Did you read it? Or just the article?

kneemos

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Probably better reception than the Midlands.

Hell has Three.

The_Valeyard

kneemos wrote: »

Hell has Three.

Hell Is Three.

Sclosages

Ok, so the study and article are nonsense. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

seamus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The claim from Sam Parnia that the brain can not function at all when the heart stops, is simply false too. There has to be a period of heart death before brain death comes. Sam however is a known proponent of OBE and NDE and the after life. He really.... really really.... wants it to be true but has no evidence it actually is.

In fact it was Parnia who attempted recently to verify OBE by doing a controlled study. The results of which I have never managed to find, likely because it gave him no positive results so he ditched or buried it.

The study the article is based on appears to be Parnia's study, and to be fair while there is a certain amount of, "Don't write it off!" bias evident from the summary of the study, he doesn't seem to have tried to take any artistic licence or draw any firm conclusions from the results.

Although out of 2060 cases, they found just 2% indicated some detailed level of conscious awareness during the resus process, Dr Parnia still seems optimistic that this means "something" and needs more investigation.

It's hard to tell if it's just a pet topic of his or if there's some inner struggle there between his professional ethic and his personal beliefs, but in either case he doesn't appear to be allowing the latter to distort the former.

Frank Bullitt

"Where do you go after ya die? The same place you were before you were born, NOWHERE" - Bill Connolly

K4t

You don't go anywhere.

You're dead, dumb and done.

Haven't these 'scientists' something acutally important they could be researching?

Galwayguy35

K4t wrote: »

You don't go anywhere.

You're dead, dumb and done.

Haven't these 'scientists' something acutally important they could be researching?

You don't know that for certain.

Defender OF Faith

Gintonious wrote: »

"Where do you go after ya die? The same place you were before you were born, NOWHERE" - Bill Connolly

K4t wrote: »

You don't go anywhere.

You're dead, dumb and done.

Haven't these 'scientists' something actually important they could be researching?

It take as much belief to say that nothing happens after death then saying you go to heaven as according to the atheists there are no evidence for either since science cannot also prove either and will most likely to the end of time will never be able to prove anything beyond the living world but dont worry you will find out what will happen once you actually die

Canis Lupus

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

It take as much belief to say that nothing happens after death then saying you go to heaven as according to the atheists there are no evidence for either since science cannot also prove either and will most likely to the end of time will never be able to prove anything beyond the living world but dont worry you will find out what will happen once you actually die

Well to be pedantic, if it turns out to be the more likely oblivion I won't have any conciousness (sp?) to know it.

Red Pepper

Sclosages wrote: »

They were dead! If no-one had resuscitated them, they wouldn't have lived to tell the tale. So, they were dead.

60% of the time, they were dead every time.

Red Pepper

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

It take as much belief to say that nothing happens after death then saying you go to heaven...

That's utter nonsense and you know it. Heaven takes a lot more imagination and "belief" and convincing than simply nothing.

Cupcake_Crisis

If there is such a thing as an after life some people are getting SOOOOO haunted!

PopePalpatine

I'd imagine heaven would get boring after the first few million years, especially if you're a celebrity constantly getting pestered by ordinary people.

mad muffin

My life was severely crippled after death

Call Me Jimmy

I think what we'll all find if we have a moment of consciousness at our last breath is that we have framed everything in the wrong way. Possibly we'll realise how we related to ourselves all our lives was erroneous. It's odd because I think as most people say 'we' (as we know and identify ourselves) go into oblivion, no more functioning etc. but on the other hand I just wonder if the experience of life isn't more of a time-share kind of scenario.

TomoBhoy

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is hard to know what the article is trying to say, which I guess is the result of having science illiterate people write science articles, which alas happens all too often in our media and is something Ben Goldacre has lamented at length in the past.

For example the opening blurb of the article refers to "Clinical death" and then in the second paragraph of the article says "The brain has shut down completely".

The two are not the same thing. The author should learn which one she is trying to talk about and stick with it, or at least adumbrate the differences as she understands them and then make clear which one she is using and why.

The article also says nothing about HOW certain things were established. It says 40% of patients described having awareness while clinically dead. How did they establish this? They took their word for it maybe? How did they establish the memories and/or experiences of the patients actually were during the time period they claim they were?

It sounds like the whole study was just anecdotes without a single control used to verify any of it. So the study tells us nothing new at all. Just more anecdotes to add to the innumerable ones we have already.

The claim from Sam Parnia that the brain can not function at all when the heart stops, is simply false too. There has to be a period of heart death before brain death comes. Sam however is a known proponent of OBE and NDE and the after life. He really.... really really.... wants it to be true but has no evidence it actually is.

In fact it was Parnia who attempted recently to verify OBE by doing a controlled study. The results of which I have never managed to find, likely because it gave him no positive results so he ditched or buried it.

His approach was to do a double blind depositing of unmissable objects in places in random operating rooms where people having OBE in typical locations (above the operating table being the most common) could see them, but no one else would know they are there. But the objects would be so incongruous to the environment you simply could not miss it.

So far I have heard of NO positive result. Not even one. If even _one_ person came back and said "I was floating over there.... out of my body..... and did you know there is a large LED display on that cupboard there with the number 545 on it?" or "I was floating over there and.... you are not going to believe this.... over there on that storage unit there is..... I feel weird even saying it..... an artificial bonsai tree made entirely of pink sex toys"...... I would sit up and take notice that MAYBE there is something going on here.

But no. Not. One. Positive. Result.

But anecdotes in non controlled environments abound, all based on people swearing blind that the patient has information no one believes they could or should have.



As above. Clinical death != Death.



Thats my issue. You would have to establish that that actually _did_ happen before making demands people explain it. However the post from seamus will teach you many things.



You have a funny definition of "dead" that no one I have met before uses. Certainly no one in the scientific or medical community.



Did you read it? Or just the article?

Plus a million

FlashR2D2

I sawghost once, itr was vcooll.

Augmerson

There might be some kind of "life" after death but the way I see it, everything that was you, your memories and your personality - that is gone. It's tied to your body. Maybe a spirit or some energy within you lives on.

Maybe it's as simple as your corpse rotting and sustaining bacteria, worms, maggots, birds, dogs and foxes that would feed on you (presuming you aren't buried above ground) and you becoming part of the food chain and the circle of life.

Maybe you add to the collective unconscious of the world somehow.

nozzferrahhtoo

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

You don't know that for certain.

We do not know ANYTHING for certain. That is how science works. What we do is we place things on a probability continuum of truth. The more substantiated a claim is the further along that continuum it goes, but it never get to the end where "certainty" resides.

What we do know about human subjectivity and experience and consciousness is that 100% of the evidence we have thus far links it inextricably to the brain and the survival of the brain. 0% of the evidence we have thus far indicates any kind of disconnect or possibility of the existence of the former without the latter.

So while pedantically you are correct, we can not be "certain" about it.... we certainly are as "certain" about it as science currently allows us to be. There simply is not a speck.... of a shred.... of an iota..... of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that even begins to lend a modicum of credibility to the idea human awareness and consciousness survives independently of the brain. Much less from anyone on THIS thread.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

It take as much belief to say that nothing happens after death then saying you go to heaven

Except that is simply not true, for the reasons I just laid out above. When all the evidence points at conclusion X while no evidence at all points at conclusion Y..... then it does not take "just as much belief" to subscribe to X over Y.

Betty Bloggs

I don't think the scientists said anything about there being a heaven or a full life after death. They are just looking at the possibility of an awareness or consciousness remaining for a certain period of time (few minutes in this case) after death. Could this theory not be looked at on it's own without bringing in belief arguments about a heaven/afterlife that continues indefinitely?
It doesn't have to turn into a believer/non believer debate.(regarding religion).

Red Pepper

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We do not know ANYTHING for certain. That is how science works. What we do is we place things on a probability continuum of truth. The more substantiated a claim is the further along that continuum it goes, but it never get to the end where "certainty" resides.

What we do know about human subjectivity and experience and consciousness is that 100% of the evidence we have thus far links it inextricably to the brain and the survival of the brain. 0% of the evidence we have thus far indicates any kind of disconnect or possibility of the existence of the former without the latter.

So while pedantically you are correct, we can not be "certain" about it.... we certainly are as "certain" about it as science currently allows us to be. There simply is not a speck.... of a shred.... of an iota..... of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that even begins to lend a modicum of credibility to the idea human awareness and consciousness survives independently of the brain. Much less from anyone on THIS thread.

Except that is simply not true, for the reasons I just laid out above. When all the evidence points at conclusion X while no evidence at all points at conclusion Y..... then it does not take "just as much belief" to subscribe to X over Y.

Nozzferrahhtoo, as always, tells it how it is. I salute you Sir.

I expect "Defender of Faith" regrets his either/or statement. He thinks that believing or not believing require the same "faith". It's like he is equating belief to whether you support Man United or Man City - the difference is that atheists don't support any football team anywhere.