Richard & Judy

[Dr B]

Today (Tuesday 20th February, 2007) The Richard & Judy TV show had Peter Fenwick and Sam Parnia on talking about mind surviving bodily death.

I find the reasoning in the arguments of these two to be laughable (based on the arguments I have seen them make in print - articles / books etc).

Today they did not disappoint in terms of their odd thinking.

Parnia claimed that there were studies showing mental abilities can exist when the brain is inactive and dead. This is completely false and has never been shown. Then they argued against the hallucination idea by stating "well, whats hallucination"? :D

Excuse me?

What's an NDE then by your logic?

The main point Parnia tried to make was - even though a brain area may be active when we feel emotion (for example) that does not mean that brain area produces emotion or is necessary for it... :D

Applied to woo reasoning the argument goes - just because a brain area is active say during 'seeing a ghost' does not mean that this ghost is the product of that brain processing (I suppose they mean it may merely be registering it - but I am not clear on this - indeed, nor were they). From this rather odd position - they land at the idea that, it must therefore be of paranormal origin or at the least that a supernatural explanation is equally viable as a neuroscientific one :D.

(note - I can see some case to be made with a small part of this - but it is not the argument they make and it's largely a theoretical one of logic...anyway...back to the plot...).

By this time I was shouting at the TV and may even have thrown something at it.....what do you all think of this reasoning? Am I correct to suggest that such an argument is flawed?

Comments welcome.

[median]

The main point Parnia tried to make was - even though a brain area may be active when we feel emotion (for example) that does not mean that brain area produces emotion or is necessary for it...


Isn't this a case of proving negatives again?

Am I correct in thinking that surface cortical electrical stimulation (probably not the correct term) has been shown to produce emotional responses from unanaesthesized patients or that patients with lesions show disturbance of affect?

[Dr B]

I think there are a host of issues wrong with it...including violating Occam's razor.

Regards the cortical stuff - emotion is mainly thought be a process that is largely dependent on the amygdala (a deep sub-cortical structure enjoying many connections to the hippocampus and is part of the hippocampal formation). However, I think the problems with the reasoning is not even that specific - its more generally and globally flawed.

What evidence do they have that brain activity is NOT producing those experiences and is not crucial for them? Of course there are neural correlates of external stimulation - but to assume this - in the presence context assumes, without proving, that there were ghosts, and an afterlife etc as an external stimulus. So it makes unnecessary assumptions in the first place. Secondly, it tries to play on words to appear clever.....but fails.....at least for me.

It also assumes that which it seeks to establish (circular)....and so on.

Also - what do they think that brain processing is actually doing? Is it supposed to be redundant? Thats seems to be the implication :D

[median]

Most arguments like these seem to me to have an almost dualist assumption.

It all seems to go 'down hill' from there :-\

[Araneus]

The main point Parnia tried to make was - even though a brain area may be active when we feel emotion (for example) that does not mean that brain area produces emotion or is necessary for it... :D

Sounds like he's studied the Cum Hoc Fallacy but never heard of Occam's razor.

Of course it is true that the neural correlates of emotion have not been proven to be the cause of emotion, but if you are going to deny this you had better have a better alternative than "Well, what do we know?"

[Dr B]

I totally agree O0 It is always nice to know (thanks to you and Median) that its not me going mad....unless of course we are all mad....... :D

[Araneus]

....unless of course we are all mad....... :D

I do actually wonder that quite a lot, to be honest. Given how much utter stupidity I see in the world, I have to wonder: maybe I am stupid, and everybody else is intelligent. How does one tell who is right, since the situation must appear the same from the other side (i.e. they think they are obviously right and we are all nutters for not believing)?

[Jocky]

For your own sanity, Doc - stay off the daytime TV! You're as bad as Median and his Pink Floyd ;D


Parnia claimed that there were studies showing mental abilities can exist when the brain is inactive and dead.

This isn't a misleading reference to "headless chicken running round the yard" type physical reflexes, is it? Or even worse, maybe it's a reference to EVP and mediums talking to the dead :D Either way, as you present the argument this appears to be intended as a premise, and it's obviously a false one.


even though a brain area may be active when we feel emotion (for example) that does not mean that brain area produces emotion or is necessary for it...

Like Araneus says, this is a violation of Occam's Razor. In the absence of any other more plausible hypothesis, Occam suggests that a causual link between the emotional response and the corresponding the brain activity is the most plausible explanation we have at present. To allege that brain activity is a consequence of the emotion rather than the cause, without any evidence of an alternative mechanism, is to propose plurality without necessity if ever I heard it ...


just because a brain area is active say during 'seeing a ghost' does not mean that this ghost is the product of that brain processing (I suppose they mean it may merely be registering it - but I am not clear on this - indeed, nor were they). From this rather odd position - they land at the idea that ... a supernatural explanation is equally viable as a neuroscientific one

Registering it by what means? Presumably they were not alleging stimulus from paranormal sources through the mundane senses - so we are talking an undetectable influence outside the brain allegedly effecting it by unknown means (any bets it's "quantum" ::) ).

Presumably this is a proposed 'hypothesis' to explain hallucinations which are percieved as paranormal. If this is supposed to be the same phenomenon as "mental abilities can exist when the brain is inactive and dead", then it's a circular argument. Besides, shouldn't there be some way of distinguishing mundane perception and emotional responses from those triggered by these mysterious external influences, if this were to be so?

[Dr B]

This isn't a misleading reference to "headless chicken running round the yard" type physical reflexes, is it? Or even worse, maybe it's a reference to EVP and mediums talking to the dead :D Either way, as you present the argument this appears to be intended as a premise, and it's obviously a false one.

;D Not quite - it is a reference to near-death research where patients have been wired to EEG and the waveforms are flat. Fenwick and Parnia argue that the NDEs of the patients happened during the period when the brain was flat lining (wrong) and that a flat EEG indicates complete neural inactivity (totally wrong).


Like Araneus says, this is a violation of Occam's Razor.

I think I mentioned it as well.... :D



Registering it by what means? Presumably they were not alleging stimulus from paranormal sources through the mundane senses - so we are talking an undetectable influence outside the brain allegedly effecting it by unknown means (any bets it's "quantum" ::) ).

Their arguments are very unspecific. But I think it can be summarised as "the brain activity is just a correlate and not a cause". Of course this is just a statement, no evidence for it is ever given.



Presumably this is a proposed 'hypothesis' to explain hallucinations which are perceived as paranormal. If this is supposed to be the same phenomenon as "mental abilities can exist when the brain is inactive and dead", then it's a circular argument.

Yes the argument is totally circular - what is more worrying is that Parnia and Fenwick have been making these arguments for years....and no one is picking them up on it.



Besides, shouldn't there be some way of distinguishing mundane perception and emotional responses from those triggered by these mysterious external influences, if this were to be so?


There are a number of ways - but these dudes ignore them. Intensity is one factor (real perception induces more intense neural response than imagination), and no external physical correlate to the experience is another.....

I am actually writing a paper now on factual and logical errors in the survivalist hypotheses - directed at NDE research. I dont want to say too much here - but it tackles a good deal of this. If it gets published (fingers crossed) i will let you know.

O0

[median]

I do actually wonder that quite a lot, to be honest. Given how much utter stupidity I see in the world, I have to wonder: maybe I am stupid, and everybody else is intelligent. How does one tell who is right, since the situation must appear the same from the other side (i.e. they think they are obviously right and we are all nutters for not believing)?


Ah, but do stupid people question their own stupidity?

[Jocky]

Thanks for the info, Doc O0


it is a reference to near-death research where patients have been wired to EEG and the waveforms are flat. Fenwick and Parnia argue that the NDEs of the patients happened during the period when the brain was flat lining (wrong)

Oh yes, now you mention it I recall I've heard of that research. Quite how one is supposed to work out with any certainty at what time an unconscious patient experiences a particular imaginative instance is beyond me :ponder:


and that a flat EEG indicates complete neural inactivity (totally wrong) ... (real perception induces more intense neural response than imagination)

Just out of interest - given that EEGs are no good for the job, is there a decent method of detecting such subtle imaginative neural responses?


If it gets published (fingers crossed) i will let you know

Good luck! Interesting stuff ...

[tablemonkey]

Richard and Judy know the demographics of their viewers and so wouldn't want to upset them with a full enquiry into it. Anything that might vaguely show it up to be a pile of poo will have Richard start talking about some experience he had to keep onside with believers.

Load of rubbish. :D

[asthmatic camel]

Apologies for a slight derail, but I remember Dr. Fenwick suggesting an experiment in A & E units to see whether survivors of cardiac arrests who report OBEs were able to recall details of images hung from the ceiling. Details here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/3098230.stm)

I've been unable to find any further information, and would dearly like to know if this rather silly plan was ever implemented. Can anyone help?

[Nicky]

Is Parnia's book worth reading? It's been sat here beside me for months now and I really don't know if I can bring myself to read it.

[Dr B]

If his book is like the papers he writes.....no - forget it and read sue blackmore instead.....O0

[Dr B]

Apologies for a slight derail, but I remember Dr. Fenwick suggesting an experiment in A & E units to see whether survivors of cardiac arrests who report OBEs were able to recall details of images hung from the ceiling. Details here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/3098230.stm)

I've been unable to find any further information, and would dearly like to know if this rather silly plan was ever implemented. Can anyone help?


Guess what....it didnt work.....;D ;D

[Allo Allo]

Guess what....it didnt work.....;D ;D

Can you post a link for us to see the results of this test please?::)

M

[Allo Allo]

Guess what....it didnt work.....;D ;D
Your opinion of Dr Fenwick taken from JREF….

“Fenwick is supposed to be neuropsychiatrist based in London and Parnia is, I think, a medic.

Fenwick has made a name in NDE research. His work is, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed, logically implausible and heavily biased to the survivalist interpretation. All his 'evidence' boils down to anecdotal reports. (my bold)

His scientific arguments against the 'dying brain' hypothesis of NDE all represent severe misunderstandings of the arguments, as they were made, factual errors, logical errors, and odd claims about the brain that I cannot find shared by any top neuroscientist.

So - basically his arguments are very poor indeed.”

But I want to know the actual test results from the experiments they did which I can’t find online – please point me to where you got your information that “It didn’t work!”

And for someone who might be interested (a lurker?) here are Dr Peter Fenwick’s arguments and they can make up their OWN minds!

here (http://www.iands.org/research/important_studies/dr._peter_fenwick_m.d._science_and_spirituality.ht ml)

I myself do not believe in paranormal – I believe there are unexplained phenomena that will turn out to be perfectly explicable once science gets a grip on “consciousness”.

M

[Dr B]

The journal Resuscitation has some more recent papers that allude to its null findings.

There was a short press release i think on the failure - but journals dont tend to publish complete null results.

It has been discussed elsewhere (see the journal above) but was overshadowed by the Pim van Lommel study which is an absolute travesty of a study....howevr, it was based on a far larger sample and spanned many years.

You can ignore the survivalist conclusions of all these studies O0

(Edit - it was a pilot study with few subjects so best not to be too critical of that one. However, no effects occurred under their protocol)

[Dr B]

The whole falllacy of Fenwick and Parnia is they think they have evidence that poses some great challenge to science - but they dont!!!!

They are just selective with their evidence, logic and have an inherently biased evaluation.

There has never been a case of NDE during flat EEG (which they keep claiming but have never proven) and they also assume that a flat EEG means the brain is dead.....it is not.

I have had an article accepted by the Skeptic magazine on these issues - though i have to break it down as a two-parter. I think Part 1 might be out later in the year - but dont quote me on that. Watch that space is all I can say.

[Allo Allo]

Guess what....it didnt work.....;D ;D

Dr B – you made a statement that I am asking you to back up in true sceptic tradition – I have searched the links you provided and can’t find
1. That anyone (except the press) is positing an “afterlife” – only that consciousness may not stop for a while after bodily death.
2. That there are any results at all – to prove or not to prove “looking down”.
I have great doubt that anyone knows what they are talking about! Chris French et al simply study the workings of the “abnormal” - delusional/aberrational (ARE they?) aspects of NDE’s. Others (Blackmore) that the brain reacts to itself dying to produce LIFE CHANGING, INSPIRATIONAL AND UPLIFTING EXPERIENCES (am I missing something in thinking this is odd?) And science is trying to make NDE’s materialistically explicable when they don’t yet know about consciousness. Mmmm
I simply would like your proof that the “looking down” tests had not worked.
It seems a bit soon to have any results whatsoever…..

[Dr B]

Dr B – you made a statement that I am asking you to back up in true sceptic tradition – I have searched the links you provided and can’t find

eeerrr I have answered your question fully - though you may not have spotted it. Just because you cant find it - does not mean its not there - Google the journal and request a copy - use "Google scholar" - it works for me. I have provided the references here, and elsewhere the argument against their position. I cant see what your problem is.

I am not a librarian for this website so you are going to have to find the resources yourself. They do exist and have been cited many times. You can get the van Lommel study from the Lancet website - free of charge!!!!! So it has nothing whatsoever to do with me backing my argument up (which I have done) and more to do with the fact you need to track the resources down. Lets be clear on that.



1. That anyone (except the press) is positing an “afterlife” – only that consciousness may not stop for a while after bodily death.

Oh come on. Fenwick, Parnia (and colleagues) and Pim van Lommel (the lancet - 2001) are all making claims for the survival of consciousness after brain death. Please read the resources before you arrive at the conlcusion. Fenwick wrote a poor book in 1995 (truth in the light) which outlines his position. You should also read Sabom and Ring for other woo woo nonsense.



2. That there are any results at all – to prove or not to prove “looking down”.


I have no idea what you mean - but if you are referring to the perspective taken in OBEs / NDEs there is no evidence that it represents veridical perception and loads that it represents imagery and memory reconstructions. Again - you will need to read the literature to see that.



I have great doubt that anyone knows what they are talking about!


How can you say that when you have admitted you cant find any literature? Seems an odd statement to me.



Chris French et al simply study the workings of the “abnormal” - delusional/aberrational (ARE they?) aspects of NDE’s. Others (Blackmore) that the brain reacts to itself dying to produce LIFE CHANGING, INSPIRATIONAL AND UPLIFTING EXPERIENCES (am I missing something in thinking this is odd?)


No - they (an me for that matter) are working on psychological and neuroscientific models for producing the experience which, as it happens, do not need to recruit paranormal nonsense into the argument.



And science is trying to make NDE’s materialistically explicable when they don’t yet know about consciousness. Mmmm

Totally wrong - again by your own admission you have not read the literature so I have no idea what you base this on. Why do you say science does not know what consciosuness is? What is your evidence for this? its one I hear alot - but one never justified. It is quite false of course.



I simply would like your proof that the “looking down” tests had not worked.
It seems a bit soon to have any results whatsoever…..

Wrong again. Parnia reported the a failure of patients to report seeing images that had been placed in a position that should have been visiable if consciosuness rose above the patient and looked down - This is not the only study to fail to find such effects. Read, Blackmore, 1982; 1992; Worelee, 2004 (I think its 2004 - check and see). Also read French's comments on the van Lommel study in the same edition of the Lancet. It's all there.....also read resuscitation - it does exist.

It was a small study, and I hope there will be bigger ones - but it was a spectacular failure and the woo woo does not always like to draw attention to them - which might explain why you are struggling to find them....???

[Dr B]

Please dont claim - none of these exist :cheesy: ;)

Appleby, L. (1989). Near death experience: Analogous to other stress induced phenomena. British Medical Journal, 298, 976-977.
Baldwin, M. (Ed.). (1970). Neurological syndromes and hallucinations. New York: Plenum.
Bentall, R. P. (1990). The illusion of reality: A review and integration of psychological
research on hallucination. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 82-95.
Blackmore, S. J. (1990). Minds, brains and death. In A. Scott (Ed.), Frontiers in science (pp. 36-49.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Blackmore, S. J. (1992). Glimpse of an after-life or just the dying brain? Psi Researcher, 6, 2-3.
Blackmore, S. J. (1993). Dying to live: Science and the near death experience. London: Gafton.
Blackmore, S. J. (1996). Near death experiences. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 89, 73-76.
Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2005). The science of false memory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Braithwaite, J.J. (1998 ) Anomalous cognition: Psychologically modelling specific paranormal experiences as instances of anomalous cognition: Implications from and for the contemporary cognitive neurosciences. University of Lancaster (UK). Unpublished Dissertation.
Braude, S. (2003) Immortal Remains: The evidence for life after death. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Carr, D. B. (1981). Endorphins at the approach of death. The Lancet, 14th Feb, 390.
Claxton, G. (2005). The wayward mind. London: Little, Brown.
Cooney, J. W., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (2003). Neurological disorders and the structure of human consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(4), 161-165.
Drab, K. (1981). The tunnel experience: Reality or hallucination? Anabiosis: The Journal of Near Death Studies, 1, 126-152.
Fenwick, P. (1995). The truth in the light. London: BCA Books.
Fontana, D. (1992). NDEs - not just the dying brain. Psi Researcher, 7, 4-6.
French, C.C. (2001) Dying to know the truth: Visions of a dying brain, or false memories? The Lancet, 358, 2010-2011.
Gabbard, G.O., & Twemlow, S.W. (1984) With the eyes of the mind. New York. Praeger
Gabbard, G.O., Twemlow, S.W., & Jones, F.C. (1981) Do “near death experiences” occur only near death? The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 169(6), 374-377.
Halgren, E., Walter, R. D., Cherlow, D. G., & Crandall, P. H. (1978). Mental phenomena evoked by electrical stimulation of the human hippocampal formation and amygdala. Brain, 101, 83-117.
Owens, J.E., Cook, E.W., Stevenson, I. (1990) Features of the near-death experience in relation to whether or not patients were near death. The Lancet, 336, 1175-1177.
Parnia S, Waller DG, Yeates R, Fenwick P. (2001) A qualitative and quantitative study of the incidence, features and aetiology of near death experiences in cardiac arrest survivors. Resuscitation 2001; 48: 149–56.
Penfield, W. (1955). The twenty-ninth Maudsley lecture: The role of the temporal cortex in certain psychical phenomena. The Journal of Mental Science, 101(424), 451-465.
Penfield, W., & Perot, P. (1963). The brains record of auditory and visual experience. Brain, 86(4), 595-696.
Ring, K. (1980). Life after death: A scientific investigation of the near-death experience. New York: Coward, McCann and Geohegan.
Saavedra-Aguilar, J. C., & Gomez-Jeria, J. S. (1989). A neurobiological model for near death experiences. Journal of Near Death Experiences, 7, 205-222.
Sabom, M. B. (1982). Recollections of death. London: Corgi.
Sabom, M.B. (1998. Light and Death. One doctors fascinating account of near-death
experiences. Mitchigan. Zondervan.
Siegal, R. K. (1977). Hallucinations. Scientific American, 237, 132-140.
Siegal, R. K. (1980). The psychology of life after death. American Psychologist, 35, 911-931.
Smithies, J. (1992). On the dying brain hypothesis. Psi Researcher, 7, 2-3.
van Lommel, P., van Wees, R., Meyers, V., & Elfferich, I. (2001). Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: A prospective study in the Netherlands. The Lancet, 358, 2039-2045.
Whinnery, J. E. (1997). Psychophysiologic correlates of unconsciousness and near-death experiences. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 15, 231–258.
Whinnery, J. E. (1990). Acceleration-induced loss of consciousness: A review of 500
episodes. Archives of Neurology, 47, 764-776.

[Allo Allo]

Wow!
If you look at post number 13 which linked to an experiment reported Wednesday, 10 September, 2003, 17:43 GMT 18:43 UK “Test for near-death visions”– you will see that I was asking how you were able to say “Guess what – it didn’t work!” (post 16) – I wanted to see the results of THAT TEST. The test was whether people who report NDE’s could identify what was on screens if they found themselves LOOKING DOWN that’s why I used the words “looking down” (seemed succinct to me). Other failed tests are NOT THIS (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/3098230.stm) one – it was a bigger and more careful test. Since people reporting NDE’s are not two a penny I would assume that it would take many YEARS to complete such a test even if one was lucky enough to have an NDE’er in the right place at the right time, presumeably having "floating to the ceiling" NDE's!. So, it was YOU who said it “didn’t work” – not me – I was asking how to find the results of THAT test, which you obviously knew about.

Asking where I could see the results of THAT TEST was done very politely – one link from you would have sufficed. I was not challenging you to be site librarian for goodness sake– I was interested to see the details and surprised the results were available so soon.

I am allowed to have my doubts about the way that some profound human experiences are simply labelled “ABNORMAL” to the brain (see last post) – because perhaps they are not. Perhaps we are wired to have them – what evolutionary task I wonder. There’s nothing woo about thinking that – it’s not a special woo idea. I would be very surprised (and concerned) if Chris French or Susan Blackmore – or anyone working in the realm of studying “Consciousness” would say they are absolutely and without doubt definitively RIGHT!

I am resisting the urge to accuse you of being aggressively arrogant in your posts– so I won’t. And I’m not going to ask what am I claiming doesn’t exist:cheesy:?, and what literature I couldn’t find:tongue:? And what it was I did not read ::)? or what I am struggling to find :scared: ? because I think it's simply a confusion. And it doesn't matter really.....who gives a damn?

M

[Dr B]

Now I really am confused :cheesy:

could you explain - as clearly as possible what you mean by 'that test' - please refer to it by names and dates if you have them - because it it difficult for me to keep track of which study you are implying and this may lead to further confusion. So which tests are you talking about? I thought you were talking about the ones known as 'the british study' in NDE circles by Parnia et al? Is that right?

[Dr B]

btw I am not being arrogant - but when people make claims about the evidence - before seeing it - it does get annoying.

[Allo Allo]

btw I am not being arrogant - but when people make claims about the evidence - before seeing it - it does get annoying.

Hi Dr B,

THE TEST was the one reported in the newspaper as in astmatic camel's link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/3098230.stm). I don't know how much CLEARER I can get than that!!!!! You said "it didn't work" so you must have seen the evidence! (Or did you post before you saw the evidence because you have made up your mind already?) >:D I couldn't find anything about it.....it was going to be set up in 25 different hospitals in the uk. I have no evidence that it was even carried out. And I'm not fixated by it - only curious! Fortunately I have TIME to be curious.

MY OWN OPINION is that it's totally screwy. It doesn't matter if you believe/not believe what they are trying to test - "looking down" by an NDE'er to identifying what was on the screen was the aim. It doesn't matter if there are OTHER failed tests. I was interested to see how many people had convenienty "died" in the rooms in which the screens had been fitted in 25 different UK hospitals, and how many had not died and reported NDE's. And how many had or had not had the "looking down" experience! How many "deaths" were they going to test? So much "luck" involved? Besides the fact that they might be trying to prove something that couldn't happen it just seemed to me like a mission impossible!

You have lumped me into a "believer" category - well, I'm watching and I'm not making up my mind. I get very uncomfortable by "skeptic zeal" - psuedoskeptics desperate to violate other people's ideas - I would be humiliated/ashamed to be thought of as one them. People are not "woo'd" this way, only repulsed. Should this board be called "UK Pseudoskeptics" instead on UK Skeptics? It certainly doesn't encourage "searchers" - its a place for people who have already made up their minds to "clobber" those who haven't and ERADICATE!!! them- so much for "education"!

I went to a party recently. One of my friends is a Geophysicist and I remembered him telling me he'd been looking for a well rumoured to be on his property which I knew he had found. "How did you find it?" I asked. "I dowsed with rods." He looked sheepish and added "There are some things in science that cannot be explained."


:knitter: M

[Admin]

You have lumped me into a "believer" category - well, I'm watching and I'm not making up my mind. I get very uncomfortable by "skeptic zeal" - psuedoskeptics desperate to violate other people's ideas - I would be humiliated/ashamed to be thought of as one them. People are not "woo'd" this way, only repulsed. Should this board be called "UK Pseudoskeptics" instead on UK Skeptics?

http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=skeptics_are_disbelievers.php

Remember Dr B is a neuroscientist working in this area (or at least related) and is not making knee-jerk comments or making uninformed a priori statements of disbelief.

The correct scientific approach to issues like this one is not to assume that the afterlife is real until proven otherwise (Argument to Ignorance (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=argumentum_ad_ignorantiam.php)) but to attempt to find out what, in a (close to) dying brain, gives rise to these experiences.

The logical starting place is to assume that NDEs are a normal (if highly untypical) experience until or unless we have good reason to think otherwise.

[Allo Allo]

I know who Dr B is and his area of work. I believe his reaction to my post was total knee jerk and I’m sorry he had that reaction! Perhaps he DOES get tired of repeating himself, I understand that. He’s just a human being! Perhaps I’m an idealist but I believe this forum’s main task is EDUCATION. Intelligent discussion rarely seems to happen!

My interest is the “Consciousness” – not an afterlife. I don’t see that NDE’s are considered “normal” in psychology or neuroscience, neither are “transcendent” experiences. We are resuscitating more people now than ever before so it is reported more, and we have no idea what those who experienced dying felt like when they died (because they are dead!) and other “transcendent” experiences in humans are pretty common. Evolution has thrown up interesting stuff, which is normal – “natural” as opposed to “supernatural” not aberrational. Quoting you – “to attempt to find out what, in a (close to) dying brain, gives rise to these experiences.” (And of course other transcendent states ….) WHY intrigues me! No implication of “God” here – just wondering how it would give us any evolutionary advantage – perhaps it doesn’t?


:knitter: M

[Araneus]

"How did you find it?" I asked. "I dowsed with rods." He looked sheepish and added "There are some things in science that cannot be explained."

That's a stupid response, especially from somebody who is a scientist. If he did find the well after dowsing, the correct response would be "That is interesting. I wonder what the explanation could be: random chance, subconscious clues or something else?"

Jumping immediately to "Oh well, it can't be explained. Wooo!" is just credulous thinking.

[Dr B]

Wow!

If you look at post number 13 which linked to an experiment reported Wednesday, 10 September, 2003, 17:43 GMT18:43UK “Test for near-death visions”– you will see that I was asking how you were able to say “Guess what – it didn’t work!” (post 16) – I wanted to see the results of THAT TEST.

As far as I am aware the test referred to by Parnia and Fenwick in the Resuscitation Journal (articles cited above) is the original pilot. I mentioned this many posts ago. If you go to the Journal you can get articles ‘in press’ and just out lately – which discuss the original and the one you mention – the results of both are the same. However, what is curious is that they only allude to these studies (no formal citations). I don’t think they formally reported it anywhere (otherwise trust me – they would have cited it themselves in their own later ‘in press’ papers). The reason it is not in any formal print appears to be that the original was a small pilot and gave no positive results. The problem is, as far as I can tell, there may have been more than one pilot study (perfectly legitimate to work on the method). However, they are all basically very similar and based on exactly the same logic. Irrespective of this, none have worked at the time of writing this. Again, a short Google will reveal all this and Parnia’s own up-to-date comments on the matter.

I certainly think there is more work to be done here and, on the whole, the generic methodology looks ok (but I have not seen the full detail so reserve formal judgement until it is reported). I hope researchers like this do get funding to look at this as it is an issue that deserves to be done properly – but when it is done properly the results must be published – win, lose or draw! :cheesy:

I think where we got confused was we were taking about different versions of the same pilot study – but I did tell you where to go to find out more – which would have cleared that up for you <IMG class=inlineimg title=">:D" alt="" src="http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/images/smilies/evil.gif" border=0 smilieid="22">. Both studies, and their other work, says nothing about the survival of consciousness (in my opinion). I think their reasoning is fallacious and they make a host of factual errors. As a consequence, their arguments are insufficient to support their conclusions.



Other failed tests are NOT THIS (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/3098230.stm) one – it was a bigger and more careful test.

It still failed from what I can tell – but with no formal reporting – it is difficult to get very clear detail. Maybe its still going on....or another pilot is in the offing



Since people reporting NDE’s are not two a penny I would assume that it would take many YEARS to complete such a test even if one was lucky enough to have an NDE’er in the right place at the right time, presumeably having "floating to the ceiling" NDE's!.

That’s right – it would (see the van Lommel study – another one cited and discussed above). However, this one will have been going for around 4 years now and I have seen some press releases and media (hence this thread). My big question is – where is the formal science? If 4-years is sufficient for Richard and Judy why not a simple little journal? I wonder…..;D


So, it was YOU who said it “didn’t work” – not me – I was asking how to find the results of THAT test, which you obviously knew about.

The only mention I know of is in the papers published, just out, or in press in the journal mentioned above – but its not a formal report of that study – it reports something else – but alludes to the one you are talking about (the in press ones). I am sure I have said all this before….Go to the Journal or contact the researcher....thats what I would do. O0



Asking where I could see the results of THAT TEST was done very politely – one link from you would have sufficed.

Really? I thought I directed you towards Google scholar ages ago? How do you think I find stuff? I know its there – go look for it. You were given all you needed to find it.



I was not challenging you to be site librarian for goodness sake– I was interested to see the details and surprised the results were available so soon.


As I have said, there is no formal report that I am aware of. But there are formal reports that allude to it and they say its not working (at least so far).


I am allowed to have my doubts about the way that some profound human experiences are simply labelled “ABNORMAL” to the brain (see last post) – because perhaps they are not.

Why are they abnormal? Who says that? Looks like the consequences of a brain dying naturally to me.


I would be very surprised (and concerned) if Chris French or Susan Blackmore – or anyone working in the realm of studying “Consciousness” would say they are absolutely and without doubt definitively RIGHT!

Indeed, but irrelevant – because none of them would share your view that we know nothing about it!!!!! By stating we know more than some people think we do, does not mean or equate to – we know it all! You are being more than unfair to the original comments here – it also reflects a fallacious form of argumentation – to extend another’s point of view to a level it was never proposed at in the first place.



Finally – regards literature – I have provided a useful non-extensive list above. Happy reading!

[Dr B]

THE TEST was the one reported in the newspaper as in astmatic camel's link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/3098230.stm). I don't know how much CLEARER I can get than that!!!!!

You cant. That is very clear (well, now it is). The thing is – if you go back above you will see many of us have been discussing more than one piece of information. I just wanted to be sure which one – as we seemed to be both getting confused with each. So I though it was appropriate to ask for clarification (especially seeing as you are not reading the directions I am giving you to find the information – Google!!!!).:-\



You said "it didn't work" so you must have seen the evidence! (Or did you post before you saw the evidence because you have made up your mind already?)

Nice try – but here is why you are wrong. Those researchers said it didn’t work in their papers reported in the journal mentioned above. All I did was say, what they did. I have not seen the evidence from that latter study (which I have made clear all the way) because it has not been reported formally – this is a point I have now made several times. In fact I don’t think either studies were reported formally – but information on them does exist and that information is sufficient to answer your question. There is no evidence from either study, at present, for veridical OBE perception. 8)


I couldn't find anything about it.....it was going to be set up in 25 different hospitals in the
uk. I have no evidence that it was even carried out. And I'm not fixated by it - only curious! Fortunately I have TIME to be curious.

I have not heard anything recently. I will keep you posted if I do.O0


I was interested to see how many people had convenienty "died" in the rooms in which the screens had been fitted in 25 different UK hospitals, and how many had not died and reported NDE's. And how many had or had not had the "looking down" experience! How many "deaths" were they going to test? So much "luck" involved? Besides the fact that they might be trying to prove something that couldn't happen it just seemed to me like a mission impossible!

Good questions – and ones they should answer (but they don’t seem to formally report stuff). I agree it appears difficult. For an example of a longitundinal questionnaire study – see van Lommel et al (2001) in The Lancet. Methodologically it’s very good. However, the logic and interpretations are very poor and fallacious.


You have lumped me into a "believer" category - well, I'm watching and I'm not making up my mind.

I have done no such thing at all. You are going way beyond the evidence here.


I get very uncomfortable by "skeptic zeal" - psuedoskeptics desperate to violate other people's ideas - I would be humiliated/ashamed to be thought of as one them.

I am not a skeptic. I am a scientist. To claim I am desperate to violate other peoples ideas is a sweeping unfounded assertion to say the least. I do actually agree with some people – but they do tend to be logical.;)


People are not "woo'd" this way, only repulsed. Should this board be called "UK Pseudoskeptics" instead on UK Skeptics?

What, for disagreeing with you? I don’t think so. I think this is an ad-hom here. I told you ages ago where to go to find all you needed to know. I cannot for the life of me see the problem. :-\

However, I do agree that pseudoskeptics do exist – and I do agree it is repulsive. However, it has nothing to do with me or this board / discussion. You have all the information you need to answer your own questions.



It certainly doesn't encourage "searchers" - its a place for people who have already made up their minds to "clobber" those who haven't and ERADICATE!!! them- so much for "education"!


Sorry – but you are quite wrong in your assessment here. It does encourage searchers. But they must know how to search to really use the information effectively. It’s no good coming back to me and insinuating that the information does not exist simply because you have not tracked it down. You were quite clear on that some time ago.


I went to a party recently. One of my friends is a Geophysicist and I remembered him telling me he'd been looking for a well rumoured to be on his property which I knew he had found. "How did you find it?" I asked. "I dowsed with rods." He looked sheepish and added "There are some things in science that cannot be explained."

Well it must be true then……..:ghost:

[Allo Allo]

Truce!

What is the point of having an experiment if the method/results aren’t published! Very sloppy!

About the dowsing...

I think that “Some things in Science cannot be explained” was a jolly appropriate answer yelled at someone at a party whilst an Elvis Impersonator is singing “Jail House Rock”. You can nod and smile at the truth of it and carry on dancing. The delight was that he is in NO WAY “woo” – only embarrassed to admit that he found his well by dowsing. I think that's amusing. :smiley: (But no one else does?? ??? )


M

[Dr B]

That is an excellent question. I would add, why all the press releases and media appeareances when - there appears to be nothing to promote other than an opinion (no evidence to support it) :cheesy:


One study you might be interested in was done years ago. Now, I am going from vague memory and I do not have the reference to hand but I think Charles Honorton did an OBE study where one subject accurately recalled a picture, on a card, placed high up in the room (above their head).

Now, the person was also supposed to have been hooked up to an EEG at the time and the profiles were supposed to show 'something' at the time of the vision. Skeptics claimed that the person was not fully observed all of the time and the disturbance in the EEG could have been them getting up out of th bed to read the card....thus disturbing the electrode contacts :-\


I guess its a case of which account you find the most likely.

As far as I am aware, and limited to the present time of writing, no study has demonstrated accurate OBE / NDE verdidical perceptions in a valid and reliable manner. This of course, does not make it untrue....but it does not support the case either O0 As you know, positive claims require positive evidence.

[Araneus]

I think that “Some things in Science cannot be explained” was a jolly appropriate answer yelled at someone at a party whilst an Elvis Impersonator is singing “Jail House Rock”. You can nod and smile at the truth of it and carry on dancing. The delight was that he is in NO WAY “woo” – only embarrassed to admit that he found his well by dowsing. I think that's amusing. :smiley: (But no one else does?? ??? )

I see, it wasn't clear that it was just a joke.

Still, he should be careful about assuming he found the well "by dowsing". It may be true that he found the well after dowsing, but there is not necessarily a causal relationship between the two.

[Allo Allo]

I see, it wasn't clear that it was just a joke.

Still, he should be careful about assuming he found the well "by dowsing". It may be true that he found the well after dowsing, but there is not necessarily a causal relationship between the two.

When tested, dowsing doesn't work - but you tell someone holding twigs/rods whatever that are "indicating" that there is no relationship between that and finding what they are looking for and they'd just laugh at you (here at least, where dowsing for something (pipes and things) is still practised.) I haven't asked one, but I think if I asked a Yorkshire farmer if dowsing "worked" he'd think I was crazy. And my question is always - why do people do it if it doesn't work??? It's not like prayer..results not seen. If you are a farmer (say) - and I've seen it in Africa too - and you want to find water - you dowse, no questions asked. Some charity or other is drilling for water currently in Africa - I wonder how they "find" it - I'll investigate.

I don't want a skep attack - I'm just saying what I'm wondering. I find it very difficult to post here - its hard to be spontaneous or relaxed or "just me" in case of attack - very stressful actually - don't know why I do it! I must be as stupid as the dowsers!

:knitter: M (I have to use granny knitting now because my avatar simply disappeared and I couldn't be bothered to upload it again.)

[Dr B]

When tested, dowsing doesn't work ;D ;D

You just answered your own question.....

[Allo Allo]

;D ;D

You just answered your own question.....

No, I repeated what I've been told. I personally have never tested dowsing - I'm just regurgitating James Randi stuff.

I have written to this crowd (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=L&ai=BxzrQUZRERoCwC4nW0ASj0YSoDKfY8AeR8ujmAZe83IAEkK EPCAAQARgBMAA4AVC14b29-v____8BYLu-roPQCpgBg4cByAEB2QOxaoNzwj8R6OADAA&q=http://www.africanwellfund.org&usg=AFrqEze3Ds0DAmfic9Ic8YWxbpqOENM4Vw) to ask how they FIND the water - practically.

[Araneus]

When tested, dowsing doesn't work

Precisely, and that's all there is to it.


And my question is always - why do people do it if it doesn't work???'

Because they lack the reasoning ability to distinguish between a genuine causal relationship and a high prior probability of finding water. If you dig in the ground in Yorkshire, chances are you are going to find water, whether you wave your rods or not.

They also lack the scientific understanding to identify other factors which might lead them to water, such as plant growth or low-lying land. Of course you could argue that this is still an example of dowsing "working", since they do find the water, but it is not what most people would mean by the term.

[Admin]

I don't want a skep attack - I'm just saying what I'm wondering. I find it very difficult to post here - its hard to be spontaneous or relaxed or "just me" in case of attack

An "attack" would be considered as someone insulting you personally to either counter you arguments (Ad Hominem (abusive) (http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6071&postcount=4)) or just to be plain nasty to you.

That does not happen. If someone forcefully disagrees with you on some issue by attacking your argument then that is perfectly fine.

Please don't mix the two things up as you're giving a false impression and misrepresenting the community here.

[Admin]

Regarding dowsing.

I've just been given the details of a French study into dowsing. I have a copy of all the source material so I can write a report for the main site. O0

It was a proper double-blind protocol and I don't think that I'll be shocking too many people to reveal that the dowsers scored exactly the same as guessing by chance.

With dowsing (and other claims), positive results can be explained by:

Real ability + Extraneous factors

What testing aims to do is to reduce the extraneous factors to a minimum (things like already knowing where the target is, clues as to where the target might be, etc.) so that it is only dowsing ability that is under test.

When the extraneous factors are accounted for, it turns out that the dowsing ability is non-existent.

So yes, dowsers probably can find water, pipes, whatever, out 'in the field' but it's not dowsing ability that's really at work; it's other factors. They would be just as successful without their dowsing rods in other words.

Their dowsing ability is just an illusion.

[Allo Allo]

Regarding dowsing.



With dowsing (and other claims), positive results can be explained by:

Real ability + Extraneous factors

What testing aims to do is to reduce the extraneous factors to a minimum (things like already knowing where the target is, clues as to where the target might be, etc.) so that it is only dowsing ability that is under test.

Their dowsing ability is just an illusion.

Now – this is what I’d call a more interesting discussion!
You see, if you simply say “dowsing doesn’t work” – that’s not true! If you say “when tested, dowsing doesn’t work – that IS true” I have quietly been plodding away looking for information about the PRACTICAL uses of dowsing, and I discover that it is used to quite an extensive degree by companies involved in “locating” stuff.
Now I think that it is spot on to say that where EXTRANEOUS influences are removed dowsing does not work. So those people who are “good” dowsers have some skill at processing clues possibly, or picking up something in the environment which causes them to be accurate. I have not the slightest opinion it is anything “supernatural” - and that’s the silliness in claiming it is! I am reminded of Chillzero’s article which I read here (but now can’t find!) on how good she was as a “spiritual healer”. She picked up on tiny clues – it was a real skill that looked supernatural but wasn’t.
After I posted about my friend who dowsed to find his well, there were a few comments about him being “woo”. Well he absolutely isn’t in any way – which led me to wonder why he dowsed with rods when he uses sophisticated equipment every day in his work. I think the answer is that it’s quick and easy and (in this case) accurate. It was simply PRACTICAL. Nothing supernatural, only something NATURAL that has probably got a jolly good explanation. But I don't think dowsing is an "illusion".

Here’s (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1281661.html) an article from Popular Mechanics – mmm – their possible explanation sounds a bit “iffy” to me, but dowsing seems to work quite successfully when its not being tested.


M (John! Where is Granny Knitting smilie? ?Have you taken it away? >:( )

[Jocky]

You see, if you simply say “dowsing doesn’t work” – that’s not true! If you say “when tested, dowsing doesn’t work – that IS true” ... Now I think that it is spot on to say that where EXTRANEOUS influences are removed dowsing does not work. So those people who are “good” dowsers have some skill at processing clues possibly, or picking up something in the environment which causes them to be accurate ... Nothing supernatural, only something NATURAL that has probably got a jolly good explanation. But I don't think dowsing is an "illusion"

Hmmm ... semantics ::)

I'd agree that there may be some people who are particularly good at picking up environmental clues which help to locate a target (whatever it may be). They may be misled into thinking that this makes them "dowsers".

But that does not make them "good at dowsing" - it just means that they are observant, and good at making educated guesses. The question is - why don't they just stand there, have a good look round and then take a punt on where the target is? Why mess around with rods?

Whether or not dowsing appears to "work" has got to do with how easy the target is to locate, and how many extraneous clues are available. in a more more controlled environment, frequency can be assessed more accurately and clues will be a lot thinner on the ground. Saying that "dowsing works" what you know perfectly well that the presence of dowsing rods have nothing to do with the success rate is rather a misleading way of putting it, IMO. An observant person has the same chance of locating the target by guesswork whether they use rods or not - and therefore dowsing cannot be said to "work" in any meaningful sense.

[Allo Allo]

Hmmm ... semantics ::)

I'd agree that there may be some people who are particularly good at picking up environmental clues which help to locate a target (whatever it may be). They may be misled into thinking that this makes them "dowsers".

But that does not make them "good at dowsing" - it just means that they are observant, and good at making educated guesses. The question is - why don't they just stand there, have a good look round and then take a punt on where the target is? Why mess around with rods?

Whether or not dowsing appears to "work" has got to do with how easy the target is to locate, and how many extraneous clues are available. in a more more controlled environment, frequency can be assessed more accurately and clues will be a lot thinner on the ground. Saying that "dowsing works" what you know perfectly well that the presence of dowsing rods have nothing to do with the success rate is rather a misleading way of putting it, IMO. An observant person has the same chance of locating the target by guesswork whether they use rods or not - and therefore dowsing cannot be said to "work" in any meaningful sense.

If you are a company using dowsers, you aren't going to be fussy about rods/no rods etc. You surely just want someone who is a good "dowser" - rods are the tools of the trade. Maybe it's just a way to concentrate - who knows?

What other succint term could you apply to someone who dowses?

It's just "words" I agree.

M

[Cuddles]

What other succint term could you apply to someone who dowses?

Deluded. Or sometimes "fraud".

[Jocky]

If you are a company using dowsers, you aren't going to be fussy about rods/no rods etc. You surely just want someone who is a good "dowser" - rods are the tools of the trade ... It's just "words" I agree/

I love words >:D

Tool: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tool)


an implement, esp. one held in the hand, as a hammer, saw, or file, for performing or facilitating mechanical operations

I'd argue that a dowsing rod is not a tool, as it neither performs nor facilitates an operation. It is simply there for show. A more appropriate term might be prop (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=property), in the theatrical sense:


any object handled or used by an actor in a performance

If I was a company looking for something, I would prefer to pay someone to find it using real means rather than bogus ones, otherwise I might end up looking like a tool in another sense entirely:


a person manipulated by another for the latter's own ends

or even


Slang: Vulgar. penis

:cheesy:

:eek3:

[Allo Allo]

Very funny! ;D

I prefered :- "anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose"


:tongue:

M

[Jocky]

I prefered :- "anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose"

But the rod is not the means of accomplishing the task - the user's guesswork serves that purpose. The rod is irrelevant, except as a prop for making a perfectly mundane process appear paranormal.

:tongue2: