Dr Rick

A person with a flat-line EEG is not conscious, and neither is a rock.

NDE's and consciousness only occur in those who have functioning brains, however, and never occur in rocks.

There is no consciousness without a brain. That's why rocks are never conscious

yguy

It appear then that you either find fault with the substance of what I quoted or the inference I draw from it. If the former, on what grounds? If the latter, why may it not be properly inferred that people who claim to have seen things during flat-lining have some level of consciousness? If they don't, how could they possibly have seen anything whatsoever?

Roland98

[quote]Originally posted by yguy

As a layman, I take this to mean that for some period of time the brain was not functioning. Nevertheless, the subjects were conscious of something during that time, without regard to whether what they claim to have seen was illusory.

Guess you didn't check the commentary for the article you cited:

See here


So this argument:

is flawed--first, the jury is out on NDEs, and if they actually "see" anything at all; second, even though they were "flat-lining," they were indeed conscious, and also had brain activity.

Dr Rick

yguy, do you understand why a rock is not conscious?

yguy

I can't find this on the page I quoted, but I'll accept this for the time being.

I'm not paying for the privliege.

And why would that be?

You guys need to get your stories together.

Dr Rick

My stance is straight and accurate, yours is not.

Where did you come-up with this:

It's not in the abstract you linked, and it's wrong. EEGs do not become iso-electric immedicately upon cardiac arrest.

The substance of your argument, as well as you interpretation of the abstract you linked in which the study did not record brain death in the subjects, is erroneous. The patients in that sudy had cardiac arrests, not brain deaths. A person that is brain dead cannot have an NDE.

What people? Where are your references? Please site the case in which someone had an EEG with no electrical activity and later recovered to tell us about an NDE.

Finally, do you understand why a rock is not conscious?

yguy

Right you are. Sorry about that. Here you go:

http://www.iands.org/dutch_study.html#how_to_find

The study on which the article is based:

http://www.zarqon.co.uk/Lancet.pdf

in which can be found this:

"Several theories have been proposed to explain NDE.
We did not show that psychological, neurophysiological,
or physiological factors caused these experiences after
cardiac arrest. Sabom22 mentions a young American
woman who had complications during brain surgery for
a cerebral aneurysm. The EEG of her cortex and
brainstem had become totally flat. After the operation,
which was eventually successful, this patient proved to
have had a very deep NDE, including an out-of-body
experience, with subsequently verified observations
during the period of the flat EEG.

And yet, neurophysiological processes must play some
part in NDE. Similar experiences can be induced
through electrical stimulation of the temporal lobe (and
hence of the hippocampus) during neurosurgery for
epilepsy,23 with high carbon dioxide levels
(hypercarbia),24 and in decreased cerebral perfusion
resulting in local cerebral hypoxia as in rapid
acceleration during training of fighter pilots,25 or as in
hyperventilation followed by valsalva manoeuvre.4
Ketamine-induced experiences resulting from blockage
of the NMDA receptor,26 and the role of endorphin,
serotonin, and enkephalin have also been mentioned,27
as have near-death-like experiences after the use of
LSD,28 psilocarpine, and mescaline.21 These induced
experiences can consist of unconsciousness, out-of-body
experiences, and perception of light or flashes of
recollection from the past. These recollections, however,
consist of fragmented and random memories unlike the
panoramic life-review that can occur in NDE. Further,
transformational processes with changing life-insight
and disappearance of fear of death are rarely reported
after induced experiences."

That last bit obviously is vulnerable to attack on the basis that it is based on subjective perceptions, but if the part in bold is veridical, it seems to cast serious doubt on the idea that consciousness is dependent on brain function.

Daleth

Abe, ex-xian doesn't even have a fully formed opinion on the subject. He's making an honest inquiry to try to come to his own conclusions rather than continuing to live by the conclusions that were simply given to him by his former religion. It's not helpful for us to try to force-feed him an opinion from a non-religious perspective. He's not making any argument whatsoever, just gathering facts and ideas, and he didn't say biology was repugnant to him. He's been open to learning more and respectful of everyone's thoughts on all sides of it, but he doesn't like being told he's not allowed to have an opinion due to his sex. I don't blame him.

You were the first person to say anything angry on the thread. The anger doesn't help.

Dal

Dr Rick

Thanks, yguy; Sabom's account was published in a lay-book, not a peer-reviewed journal. I could find nothing to corroborate it or anything similar to it in the medical literature. I've seen similar stuff published by doctors for the laity about the power of prayer that they've "personally witnessed," and while their stories are also dramatic and compelling, they aren't really scientific evidence.

Do you know of any cases or studies in a peer-reviewed journal that we could discuss, because I can't find anything of the sort in my searches?

yguy

No. I'd be very surprised to find a significant amount of empirical data about this sort of thing for obvious reasons. That's the problem: we have no way as of now to verify that any of this is true or false. All we can do is fudge up explanations which are inevitably colored by whatever prejudices we have.