Example of a loaded question

[Dr B]

I was reading the latest SPR journal the other day and someone had written a book review for a new book on near-death experiences (cant remember the book or title - but I think it is written by Sam Parnia).

Anyway, the reviewer claims that Parnia asks the main question (something like) "just how can a brain that is dead support human experience and produce an NDE"? This apparently is the major question Parnia explores and it is regarded as the now 'big burning' question in the field.

It is of course - total nonsense. It is a completely loaded question and one that starts with assumptions that have never been shown to occur. On these grounds I reject the idea that it is the 'burning' question.

The BIG problem is none of these researchers have any cases at all that convincingly show the OBE / NDE occurred at the time of brain death - there is no reason or evidence to support this. So if there is no evidence for the observation it undermines the whole question above.

Its like asking "how is it that some people can levitate for hours and defy gravity just by the power of their minds..." - as this has never been shown to be true - the question is a nonsense :o

The question assumes to be true, that which it seeks to establish (circular reasoning). What amazes me is how many NDE researchers are taken in by it.

The best case I know of is that of Mrs Reynolds - who had a 4-hour operation on her brain. The op requires the brain to be cooled and blood to be drained from it. Its very lengthy and very complex (I believe the surgeon was one Robert Spetzler or something similar). However, the brain is only really 'dead' for about 3-4 mins of the entire 4 hours. There is no evidence that the NDE reported by Mrs Reynolds occurred at that time and indeed, there is plenty of evidence that it occurred over two hours earlier during the initial stages of anesthesia!

Why dont woo's bother with facts???? >:D

[kath23]

Why dont woo's bother with facts???? >:D


Because some of them, if they allowed a tiny woo-free thought into their minds, the entirety of their lives would crumble ;D

Also in the words of the cliche, why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

[Admin]

The best case I know of is that of Mrs Reynolds - who had a 4-hour operation on her brain. The op requires the brain to be cooled and blood to be drained from it. Its very lengthy and very complex (I believe the surgeon was one Robert Spetzler or something similar). However, the brain is only really 'dead' for about 3-4 mins of the entire 4 hours.


???

How dead is dead?

Surely there must be some brain activity even it's just extremely slow metabolism. Or, does cell death not occur at these low temperatures in the absence of oxygen uptake, for a short while at least?

I agree that Parnia is begging the question here. His assumption, it seems to me at least, is that the brain is actually dead in such cases. It depends on how brain death is defined.

[Dr B]

Because some of them, if they allowed a tiny woo-free thought into their minds, the entirety of their lives would crumble ;D

Also in the words of the cliche, why let the facts get in the way of a good story?


I think that is very true. However, I always expect more from educated people who should know better. The mistakes above are not high-level logical ones - merely simple factual ones.... ::)

[Dr B]

How dead is dead?


Indeed. Also - 'when' in the time-line is one dead....that is the crux I feel. Flat EEG is insufficient to establish brain-death. In the case of Reynolds, the brain stem was deemed inactive - but only at one point (the four min period) and this is not when the experience took place so its irrelevant.



Surely there must be some brain activity even it's just extremely slow metabolism. Or, does cell death not occur at these low temperatures in the absence of oxygen uptake, for a short while at least?

It is difficult to say - but activity is likely to be reduced during the crucial 4-min period. Cooling the brain stops cells from dying as it reduces their burning of nutrients - but as you note - it can only be done for a very short while.



I agree that Parnia is begging the question here. His assumption, it seems to me at least, is that the brain is actually dead in such cases. It depends on how brain death is defined.


Yes - but they also assume that the experience occurs when the brain is at its most inactive - thus - the NDE cannot be based in brain activity (by their argument). For the reasons I have given above - it is clearly nonsense. 8)

[Admin]

Yes - but they also assume that the experience occurs when the brain is at its most inactive - thus - the NDE cannot be based in brain activity (by their argument). For the reasons I have given above - it is clearly nonsense. 8)


Ah! yes.

If the brain is at its most inactive then it is not likely to be experiencing anything. Of course this inactivity could be the argument supporting an external source of the experience (soul, spirit, etc.); but, there's the (insurmountable as I see it) problem of ascertaining when during the unconscious time the experience occurred.

If a patient wakes up and reports an NDE then it can only be assumed that it occurred during the time of minimal brain activity. Again, the assumption that this is so supports the hypothesis in a circular fashion.

Is there any way of discerning between normal brain activity in anaesthetised brains from the activity shown by someone reporting an NDE experience under the same conditions?

What I'm thinking is that if there's a difference in brain activity between a person who experiences an NDE and someone who doesn't then it may be possible to to look for the absence of this activity in a case like the above (for the amount of time it can be measured) so that it would be more reasonable to conclude that the NDE occurred during minimal brain activity.

Just a thought. Obviously, I know little about this type of research.

[median]

Why dont woo's bother with facts?


However, I always expect more from so-called educated people who should know better. The mistakes above are not high-level logical ones - merely simple factual ones....

Perhaps there is an ability of generating/considering counter explanations or perhaps a persistence of set, similar to those found in problem solving?

[Dr B]

Why dont woo's bother with facts?


However, I always expect more from so-called educated people who should know better. The mistakes above are not high-level logical ones - merely simple factual ones....

Perhaps there is an ability of generating/considering counter explanations or perhaps a persistence of set, similar to those found in problem solving?


possibly - but its the aversion to simple facts that is worrying. Its like a kind of 'mind-blindness' to the obvious.....a basic training in science would generate the questions i did above for anyone....so why not Parnia? Its very worrying.... O0

[Dr B]

If the brain is at its most inactive then it is not likely to be experiencing anything. Of course this inactivity could be the argument supporting an external source of the experience (soul, spirit, etc.); but, there's the (insurmountable as I see it) problem of ascertaining when during the unconscious time the experience occurred.


Indeed - thats my whole point above - they take an experience and 'brain inactivity' and assume the two are causally linked. If you think about it as a 4-hour period of which only 4mins involved almost total inactivity you can see that the laws of probability would predict it happened during some activation rather than during reduced activation.



Is there any way of discerning between normal brain activity in anaesthetised brains from the activity shown by someone reporting an NDE experience under the same conditions?

Hallucinatory activity looks seizure-like and is the most likely type of activity underlying NDE. The problem is that medics are trying to save lives rather than hook people up to EEG and gather data - though there are some instances in the literature which support my argument.

[Cuddles]

Why dont woo's bother with facts???? >:D


As a wise man once said, "You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true".

[Admin]

The problem is that medics are trying to save lives rather than hook people up to EEG and gather data


How bloody inconsiderate of them. >:(

Well it seems the reports of these people's deaths have been greatly exaggerated! ;D

There are many people who claim that NDEs are compelling evidence in support of the afterlife hypothesis but when looked at a little closer it is not really any less speculative than other forms of evidence.

[huw-l]

I though NDEs and 'religious' experiences in general could reliably be produced by trans-cranial magnetic stimulation.

Of course saying that I can't find a reference anywhere.

[Dr B]

No - TMS cannot do this.

TCS trans-cerebral stimulation is what can do this (see the work of Persinger). TCS uses weak complex fields. TMS uses very strong simple ones.

[Cuddles]

There are many people who claim that NDEs are compelling evidence in support of the afterlife hypothesis but when looked at a little closer it is not really any less speculative than other forms of evidence.

Possibly even more so. I can never help being amused at people citing living people as proof that there is something after you die. No matter how "near death" their experiences are, they are not actually death and so prove nothing about what happens afterwards. In fact we are all continuously having an NDE, it's called living, but that doesn't mean we all know what will happen once it's over.

[Dr B]

It amazes me as well..... ;D

[Dr B]

This is a link to a really bad article on NDEs. What amazes me - is just how bad it is.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/vanLommel.htm

[Dr B]

Pim van Lommel wrote the reply given in the link above to Shermer’s critique of van Lommel’s earlier study. I have decided to ignore all the nonsense from the quantum stuff and metaphorical magnetic field stuff which is all supposition and unsupported metaphor (see the end of the article proper to see what I am talking about). I thought in the interest of a critical thinking exercise we can take a more rationale look at van Lommel’s response here. (apologies for the long post)

We performed our prospective study in 344 survivors of cardiac arrest to study the frequency, the cause and the content of near-death experience (NDE). In our study 282 patients (82%) did not have any memory of the period of unconsciousness, 62 patients (18%) however reported a NDE with all the “classical” elements.
Failure to memorise is not the same as failure to actually experience anything. I am concerned as to the level of brain damage incurred or the state of the patient during the interviews. Other studies have found much higher hit rates of NDEs with comparable samples (see the work of Blackmore and Fenwick etc) – so it’s a bit of an anomaly here.


Between the two groups there was no difference in the duration of cardiac arrest or unconsciousness, intubation, medication, fear of death before cardiac arrest, gender, religion, education or foreknowledge about NDE. More frequent NDE was reported at age younger than 60 years, more than one cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during hospital stay, and previous NDE.
So all null results here then?


Patients with memory defects after lengthy and complicated CPR reported less frequent NDE.

Duh? Does this not go against the whole argument of mind being separate from the brain? The memory deficits are neuronal and functional ones and hey presto – no NDEs reported! This links to my earlier points above. Maybe there were NDEs – but they have been forgotten due to the memory problems. My hunch is these memory problems relate to cellular damage from excessive excito-toxicity – that’s a major seizure with the full capacity to induce altered states. However, its difficult to interpret this result and claim - but fewer reports from people with memory problems - is that really that surprising :o.



There are several theories that should explain the cause and content of NDE. The physiologic explanation: the NDE is experienced as a result of anoxia in the brain, possibly also caused by release of endomorphines, or NMDA receptor blockade.

Actually – they all make one central prediction – that neural disinhibition underlies the NDE. Van Lommel provides no evidence either here or in the original study that goes against this logical consequence of heart arrest and oxygen starvation.




In our study all patients had a cardiac arrest, they were clinically dead, unconscious, caused by insufficient blood supply to the brain because of inadequate blood circulation, breathing, or both. If in this situation CPR is not started within 5-10 minutes, irreparable damage is done to the brain and the patient will die. According to this theory, all patients in our study should have had an NDE, they all were clinical dead due to anoxia of the brain caused by inadequate blood circulation to the brain, but only 18% reported NDE.

This logic is nonsense. There are many reasons why people may not recount NDEs or may not even have NDEs. The crucial thing is the rate and range of the disinhibition and this is mediated by many complex factors including the state of awareness and thoughts etc before the brain starts to enter seizure. Other factors include differences in connectivity, levels of arousal, neuronal inhibition and so on. Only 18% reporting NDEs is nonsense (as what about those with memory problems mentioned above – its difficult to say as it is a null effect - but these patients are more likely to have suffered a greater degree of seizure) and no theory would ever predict that all patients with anoxia would develop an NDE. There are many different types of anoxia with differing rates of onset and consequences. Blackmore suggested that only those with a sustained degree of insufficiency before total failure are likely to report and remember altered states. Van Lommel seems to ignore this. This is a straw man of near biblical proportions – no neuroscientific theory would ever predict that everyone who suffers from anoxia will report an NDE.


We know that patients with cardiac arrest are unconscious within seconds, but how do we know that the electro-encephalogram (EEG) is flat-lined in those patients, and how can we study this? Complete cessation of cerebral circulation is found in cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation (VF) during threshold testing at implantation of internal defibrillators. This complete cerebral ischaemic model can be used to study the result of anoxia of the brain.
In other words – we have no direct evidence at all so we are going to fudge it here with some estimations. However, its all further flawed as the experience is not linked with flat EEG and flat EEG is also not a reliable indicator of brain inactivity at all.


Through many studies in human, as well as in animal models, cerebral function has been shown to be severely compromised during cardiac arrest and electric activity in both cerebral cortex and the deeper structures of the brain has been shown to be absent after a very short period of time.

Absent from the EEG – or absent per-se (you see they are making big interpretations from a null finding). In addition EEG representation of sub-cortical structures is an indirect assumption not shared by the whole community – remember the EEG is placed on the scalp and is only capable of measuring fields at the scalp. It is not a reliable indicator of deep sub-cortical processing at all.




Monitoring of the electric activity of the cortex (EEG) has shown ischaemic changes consisting of a decrease of fast high amplitude waves and an increase of slow delta waves, and sometimes also an increase in amplitude of theta activity, progressively and ultimately declining to isoelectricity. More often initial slowing (attenuation) of the EEG waves is the first sign of cerebral ischaemia. The first ischaemic changes in the EEG are detected an average of 6.5 seconds after circulatory arrest.
So what? This is irrelevant as it provides no evidence at all for the argument being made and is equally consistent with neuroscientific accounts.



From these studies we know that in our prospective study of patients that have been clinically dead (VF on the ECG) no electric activity of the cortex of the brain (flat EEG) must have been possible, but also the abolition of brain stem activity like the loss of the corneareflex, fixed dilated pupils and the loss of the gag reflex is a clinical finding in those patients.
Whoa….hold on there pal. You don’t know any of this. You are inferring it all indirectly from the time of heart arrest. This whole statement is unsupported and a huge sweeping statement in the absence of firm reliable evidence. The level of activity in the brain is not known – even with EEG. One could make a logical argument that after some prolonged time period that brain acitivity is unlikely and that’s fair enough…..but this is not provided and we still have no evidence linking ‘experience’ to dead brains.

However, patients with an NDE can report a clear consciousness, in which cognitive functioning, emotion, sense of identity, and memory from early childhood was possible, as well as perception from a position out and above their “dead” body.
…and here is the fundamental sweeping statement and logical fallacy for all to see. The fundamental assumption that the dead brain and striking experience go hand in hand in time. At no point in van Lommel’s report is any evidence given to support this fundamental statement. It is a nonsense and an error.

Because of the sometimes reported and verifiable out-of -body experiences, like the case of the dentures reported in our study, we know that the NDE must happen during the period of unconsciousness, and not in the first or last second of this period.
eerrrr no we don’t. Of the cases that have been examined by objective scientists this level of accuracy disappears. Also the claim made here is not supported by the original study at all…..it does not support that the experience happened when the brain was dead.


So we have to conclude that NDE in our study was experienced during a transient functional loss of all functions of the cortex and of the brainstem.
No we don’t – because you have not provided any evidence for this fundamental assumption.


It is important to mention that there is a well documented report of a patient with constant registration of the EEG during cerebral surgery for an gigantic cerebral aneurysm at the base of the brain, operated with a body temperature between 10 and 15 degrees, she was put on the heart-lung machine, with VF, with all blood drained from her head, with a flat line EEG, with clicking devices in both ears, with eyes taped shut, and this patient experienced an NDE with an out-of-body experience, and all details she perceived and heard could later be verified. (8)
This is blatantly untrue and van Lommel is being disingenuous with the truth here. The experience did not occur during the crucial period when the brain was most incapacitated and this has been shown to be the case based on the patients own recollections and a critical reassessment of the case. Also, all the details do not check out and there were many inaccuracies. I find this type of statement the worse form of academic sin.


There is also a theory that consciousness can be experienced independently from the normal body-linked waking consciousness.
So what? I would not call it a theory and I doubt that its true.

The current concept in medical science states that consciousness is the product of the brain. This concept, however, has never been scientifically proven.
What???? What utter tosh. Now the guy really is clutching at straws.

For decades, extensive research has been done to localize memories inside the brain, so far without success.
What???? Simply not true.
Everything that followed this point descended into more and more desperation and I felt I had better leave it to you guys n girls before I explode in a puff of logic.

[Araneus]

It seems to me that proper scientific research into this area is more or less impossible, since it relies critically on first-person accounts which are in general scientifically worthless (or at least of very low value). It is not obvious that concepts such as "the time an experience occured" even have any meaning -- there is no functional difference between an "experience" that happens at a specific time, and a retroactively-constructed memory of that experience happening. These first-person reports of NDEs could be entirely constructed by the subject on waking from the anaesthetic, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual conditions observed during the operation.

[Dr B]

I agree with your reservations and have made similar points elsewhere. However, where i disagree is as to whether they can be studied scientifically - they can and indeed, Penfield got a Noble Prize for efforts with epilepsy - but which showed that such experiences could be induced artificially. It was not technically NDE research but it speaks directly to it.

I think there is a genuine experience to be explained. A scientific account needs to be able to explain the contents of the experience and outline the mechanisms which induced it. It needs to be able to explain the tunnel experience, seeing the world from a different point of view, deep meaning and so on. It needs to be able to explain the patterns in the experience. It also needs to be able to explain the many facets of the NDE like people having life-changing experiences etc. Science is more than capable.

You are quite right that it is very difficult - but it is not impossible and some great ideas are out there. O0

The problem I outlined above relates more to poor science - as opposed to whether or not some good science could come out of it.

[idunno]

i cannot post links yet but if you go to iands org you can see the latest researchers response to critics in:« out of body experience: is it al in the brain?»

[idunno]

I was reading the latest SPR journal the other day and someone had written a book review for a new book on near-death experiences (cant remember the book or title - but I think it is written by Sam Parnia).

Anyway, the reviewer claims that Parnia asks the main question (something like) "just how can a brain that is dead support human experience and produce an NDE"? This apparently is the major question Parnia explores and it is regarded as the now 'big burning' question in the field.

It is of course - total nonsense. It is a completely loaded question and one that starts with assumptions that have never been shown to occur. On these grounds I reject the idea that it is the 'burning' question.

The BIG problem is none of these researchers have any cases at all that convincingly show the OBE / NDE occurred at the time of brain death - there is no reason or evidence to support this. So if there is no evidence for the observation it undermines the whole question above.

Its like asking "how is it that some people can levitate for hours and defy gravity just by the power of their minds..." - as this has never been shown to be true - the question is a nonsense :o

The question assumes to be true, that which it seeks to establish (circular reasoning). What amazes me is how many NDE researchers are taken in by it.

The best case I know of is that of Mrs Reynolds - who had a 4-hour operation on her brain. The op requires the brain to be cooled and blood to be drained from it. Its very lengthy and very complex (I believe the surgeon was one Robert Spetzler or something similar). However, the brain is only really 'dead' for about 3-4 mins of the entire 4 hours. There is no evidence that the NDE reported by Mrs Reynolds occurred at that time and indeed, there is plenty of evidence that it occurred over two hours earlier during the initial stages of anesthesia!

Why dont woo's bother with facts???? >:D

There has been a very lengthy discussion about this whole issue in the Journal of Near-Death Studies (which I subscribe to). The actual conclusion: skeptics say the above, the researchers on the other hand have enough counter arguments for which the skeptics have no good response. So there is a stale mate. Ms Reynolds by the way was not involved in the discussion. The usual thing: talking about the patient, but not with the patient.

[Dr B]

No response? Really? Which ones?

[Dr B]

Bump....

Much of the discussion above has now come to fruition in a recent paper that was being written at the time. Apologies for the shamless publicity.

Braithwaite, J.J. (2008 ) Towards a Cognitive Neuroscience of the Dying Brain, The Skeptic Magazine, (21), 2, 8-16.

[Admin]

Much of the discussion above has now come to fruition in a recent paper that was being written at the time. Apologies for the shamless publicity.

Braithwaite, J.J. (2008 ) Towards a Cognitive Neuroscience of the Dying Brain, The Skeptic Magazine, (21), 2, 8-16.

Excellent it is too. A must read for any skeptic who wants a good understanding of the NDE debate.

The Skeptic magazine can be subscribed to here: http://www.skeptic.org.uk/shop/index.php