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 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

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.

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.

[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

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

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.

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.....