Awareness at Death(community.macmillanlearning.com)
community.macmillanlearning.com
Awareness at Death
https://community.macmillanlearning.com/t5/talk-psych-blog/awareness-at-death/ba-p/19410
179 comments
> I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides. In the face of such evidence and against such powerful and widespread belief systems of the afterlife, I occasionally think of the possibility of an afterlife, but there is no hint that I will see anyone I know, or even continue to exist in any form, but rather a long dreamless sleep.
- Carl Sagan, Billions & Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium
- Carl Sagan, Billions & Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium
My father is in pretty good shape (very active), but also very religious these days and he's basically told me nothing in this life matters and he's ready for the afterlife which he believes will be a paradise. The Sagan quote is ironic as he was a huge fan as a younger man.
It's always saddened me that he has trouble focusing on the joys in this life. There's a lot to be grateful for, for those of us lucky enough to live in a secure country with food on the table.
It's always saddened me that he has trouble focusing on the joys in this life. There's a lot to be grateful for, for those of us lucky enough to live in a secure country with food on the table.
There is no evidence of Sagan’s theory though, that in death we will be in a long dreamless sleep. In fact, I would argue that the beauties of this life (suggested in his quote) point to an afterlife. To say that our experience here has much love and moral depth, leads one to ponder, why is there anything at all? And on top of that, why do morals and love exist? And why are these things good? The Christian perspective is that “the heavens declare the glory of God”, extrapolated to this discussion, the very things we marvel at in this life should lead to pondering what lies beyond.
Actually I think we have evidence there isn't any existence after death. Many religions claims various different things. Does everyone just get their own wish fulfillment? Probably not.
There are various random claims of proof of something happening after death, contradictory and with no real evidence. When there's no evidence, and people make very contradictory claims while claiming absolute evidence but having now, .... it's probable that there's nothing happening. I'd like to imagine my deceased loved ones are still around somewhere, but I don't think they are.
There are various random claims of proof of something happening after death, contradictory and with no real evidence. When there's no evidence, and people make very contradictory claims while claiming absolute evidence but having now, .... it's probable that there's nothing happening. I'd like to imagine my deceased loved ones are still around somewhere, but I don't think they are.
I agree with you on the point that the different world religions make mutually exclusive claims about the afterlife. Ultimately the only way to know what happens after death is to have an authoritative eyewitness. I personally don’t count NDE’s because we have to get into the question of what is truly “dead” (and also gauge the truthfulness of the individuals spiritual experience — that is if they are more than hallucinations)
I take the position that Jesus is that authoritative eye witness — the whole Christian religion hinges on that. I find his claims, the historical documents, and eye witness testimony that’s been preserved from the 1st century too compelling.
I take the position that Jesus is that authoritative eye witness — the whole Christian religion hinges on that. I find his claims, the historical documents, and eye witness testimony that’s been preserved from the 1st century too compelling.
We simply don't know anything about what occurs after death.
It's possible that there is nothing (the dreamless sleep was just Sagan being poetic I would guess). It's also possible one or more of the many religions are correct.
It's possible that there is nothing (the dreamless sleep was just Sagan being poetic I would guess). It's also possible one or more of the many religions are correct.
The question of “why” could be a human construct. There doesn’t have to be a “why”.
But it seems to be more an observation of the world rather than a human construct. When we look out at the world we see causes and effects. The “why” in this case is asking what is the cause(s) of a subset of effects
cause and effect still doesn’t necessitate a “why”, just a cause. once you start leaving a realm where empirical evidence is not possible, I think you’re more into philosophy which…is a world of its own. in any case, I appreciate the discussion. have a good one!
No wonder most if not all religions deny death but promising afterlife or via some other ideas.
It's much easier that way to make people self sacrifice for the religion, gives a meaning to their life and pacifies their fear of death.
Plenty of religions don't demand self sacrifice from their adherents. Polytheist and animist creeds are very different from the Abrahamic faiths that we tend to think of when we speak about religion.
For example, the Tlingit in Alaska believe in reincarnation, but in their tribal way of life, there really isn't any compelling "use" (in the Machiavellistic sense) for that belief.
For example, the Tlingit in Alaska believe in reincarnation, but in their tribal way of life, there really isn't any compelling "use" (in the Machiavellistic sense) for that belief.
I was present when someone else went through the same experience but they reacted slightly differently than you did…”Please don’t stop CPR! There’s nothing there! Whenever you stop and I die, it’s all black!” His last horrified words were “There’s nothing there!”
I wonder if this reaction was because his brain hasn't yet entered the stage where NDEs normally occur - ie. he was still somewhat conscious and expecting an NDE at this early stage where they don't yet occur?
NDE, also as what I get from the article, seems to be just hallucination.
I also have experience of void, but from serious surgery. It is hard to describe something as simple as absence. But it left deep impression on me that there can be true emptiness. And as other have said here, I'm now not that worried about it.
I also have experience of void, but from serious surgery. It is hard to describe something as simple as absence. But it left deep impression on me that there can be true emptiness. And as other have said here, I'm now not that worried about it.
wow, that's really unfortunate for him. I don't know why I reacted so positively when he reacted so negatively, but I didn't find it disturbing at all. It was a palpable feeling of being "okay" for me.
I take it that person didn't make it?
I take it that person didn't make it?
> During the time I was dead
Thanks for sharing. Very interesting experience however, I don’t think that you were dead. IMHO, you were in a state where your brain was not functioning properly due to lack of blood flow or maybe external input.
All death experiences seem to be something of that sort and I suspect if body transplant was a thing, the experience would have been similar.
I think the correct description of the experience would be pre-death or something similar and would not be a glimpse into the “life beyond death”.
Thanks for sharing. Very interesting experience however, I don’t think that you were dead. IMHO, you were in a state where your brain was not functioning properly due to lack of blood flow or maybe external input.
All death experiences seem to be something of that sort and I suspect if body transplant was a thing, the experience would have been similar.
I think the correct description of the experience would be pre-death or something similar and would not be a glimpse into the “life beyond death”.
I don't think I have grounds to argue against this take.
I think the definition of death changes over time as medical technology advances in its ability to return someone to "life".
I think the definition of death changes over time as medical technology advances in its ability to return someone to "life".
If your brain is working well enough to have thoughts about its experiences, I don't see how you could call that death when people whose brains are not working that well at all, are alive.
It's also important to remember that we don't know what we experienced in the past, only what our fallible memories of the past are. This applies to more than just near-death experiences.
It’s an open question in many (most?) of the reported NDEs as to whether their experiences were contemporaneous with their “deaths”, or rather their brain’s retrospective backfilling of the period when it was oxygen-starved and neurotransmitters lacked the ability to regulate their concentration and flow. I’m not a neuroscientist (or any kind of scientist) but I don’t think the consensus involves approaching reported subjective experiences from a presumption that they reflect the literal experience of death in the more permanent sense.
I think the naming fruits test with the headphones was meant to cover this. The evidence seems to point at "nobody formed memories of language sounds while they were flatlining", the one correct answer matches expected random chance.
Wasnt there something on here recently about EKG signals an hour after cardiac arrest?
I had similar experience where my heart stopped beating and went into complete darkness, apparently it was a reaction to something they were doing a tissue sample. Nonetheless the experience was very similar but I was only 14 then, so I didn't think much of life or death then.
Now almost 3 decades later, I really don't think that dying is what I'm most worried about, really I just don't want to die before my dog or my wife. That said, being quite influenced by stoicism I do remind myself that I could die any second and I always live such that I won't have any regrets if I die any minute. Memento Mori.
Now almost 3 decades later, I really don't think that dying is what I'm most worried about, really I just don't want to die before my dog or my wife. That said, being quite influenced by stoicism I do remind myself that I could die any second and I always live such that I won't have any regrets if I die any minute. Memento Mori.
Did you experience brain death? Because that kinda sounds like the sensation of losing all contact with the peripheral nervous system, without actually losing consciousness.
Don't know. There was no brain monitoring going on. When I crashed, the tech was still trying to put on the EKG leads.
If they had experience brain death they wouldn’t be here talking to you.
> Death is the permanent end of all biological functions that sustain a living organism. It is no longer defined as the cessation of heartbeat (cardiac arrest) and breathing, as CPR and prompt defibrillation can sometimes restart both. In modern medicine, when a definition of the moment of death is required, doctors and coroners usually turn to "brain death" or "biological death" to define a person as being dead; brain death being defined as the complete and irreversible loss of brain function (including involuntary activity necessary to sustain life).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_after_death#Deat...
TL;DR - you don’t come back from actual death, or you didn’t actually die. There’s no coming back from all biological function ending.
> Death is the permanent end of all biological functions that sustain a living organism. It is no longer defined as the cessation of heartbeat (cardiac arrest) and breathing, as CPR and prompt defibrillation can sometimes restart both. In modern medicine, when a definition of the moment of death is required, doctors and coroners usually turn to "brain death" or "biological death" to define a person as being dead; brain death being defined as the complete and irreversible loss of brain function (including involuntary activity necessary to sustain life).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_after_death#Deat...
TL;DR - you don’t come back from actual death, or you didn’t actually die. There’s no coming back from all biological function ending.
Loss of consciousness is not death, your brain was alive the entire time. It takes upwards of 10 minutes before the brain dies, usually longer, and each minute approaching those thresholds has a high probability of severe brain damage. Check out cerebral anoxia or brain death to learn more.
If you were expecting actual death, then no revived person has ever experienced death because they weren't completely dead to begin with, even if tissue damage happened. Let's compromise on near death experience.
I’m basing it off of people saying they died, and they didn’t, because like you said, you literally can’t come back from death. What was described was loss of consciousness/passing out, and it’s odd so many people pass out and claim they died.
I read quite a few reports claiming the similar experience, a deep sleep. That's how I view death now, a sleep so deep that no one can wake up from it. With all external inputs are muted, the brain left itself alone in the "void", doing what brains do, fade to "dreaming".
But then again, I imagine one could experience almost the same when under anesthesia or just regular sleep, so I guess you don't really have to do it the hard way :)
But then again, I imagine one could experience almost the same when under anesthesia or just regular sleep, so I guess you don't really have to do it the hard way :)
They say life is the space between two black eternities.
I suppose we already know what death is like: exactly the same than before we were born, vast non-existence.
I suppose we already know what death is like: exactly the same than before we were born, vast non-existence.
> During the time I was dead
Semantic correction for this and all similar recollections: You are alive to tell the story, so you were, in fact, not dead.
Semantic correction for this and all similar recollections: You are alive to tell the story, so you were, in fact, not dead.
I got better. ;-)
The substantive results from the article:
> First, most of the 53 survivors initially flat-lined on the EEG, but, with continued CPR, recovered brain activity up to 60 minutes later. This result not only encourages first responders to persist, it also suggests the possibility of to-be-recalled cognitive activity in comatose patients.
> Second, 6 of the 28 interviewed survivors (21 percent) had a “transcendent recalled experience of death.” This roughly accords with prior studies’ finding that 10 to 15 percent of cardiac arrest survivors report a memorable transcendent conscious experience (which Parnia labels a “recalled experience of death” rather than a “near-death experience”).
> Third, the study enabled an unprecedented objective test of survivors’ recall accuracy. ... Parnia and his three dozen collaborators creatively devised and implemented a plan to put claims of death-experience recollections to the test. As patients underwent CPR, a tablet computer displayed one of ten visual images, such as an animal, a person, or a monument. When later interviewed, could the 28 survivors report the image displayed during their death experience? If not, could they, when shown the ten possible images, guess which image had been displayed? The result: “Nobody identified the visual image."
> During 5 minutes of the CPR, patients also were repeatedly exposed through the headphone audio to the names of 3 fruits: apple, pear, banana. When the 28 survivors were later asked to guess the 3 fruits, how many correctly recalled them? One person. (A chance result? When a colleague invited his psychology students to name 3 fruits, a similar 2 of 50 named an apple, pear, and banana.)
So near-death experiences are fairly common, but no evidence that memories of out-of-body experiences reflect reality.
> First, most of the 53 survivors initially flat-lined on the EEG, but, with continued CPR, recovered brain activity up to 60 minutes later. This result not only encourages first responders to persist, it also suggests the possibility of to-be-recalled cognitive activity in comatose patients.
> Second, 6 of the 28 interviewed survivors (21 percent) had a “transcendent recalled experience of death.” This roughly accords with prior studies’ finding that 10 to 15 percent of cardiac arrest survivors report a memorable transcendent conscious experience (which Parnia labels a “recalled experience of death” rather than a “near-death experience”).
> Third, the study enabled an unprecedented objective test of survivors’ recall accuracy. ... Parnia and his three dozen collaborators creatively devised and implemented a plan to put claims of death-experience recollections to the test. As patients underwent CPR, a tablet computer displayed one of ten visual images, such as an animal, a person, or a monument. When later interviewed, could the 28 survivors report the image displayed during their death experience? If not, could they, when shown the ten possible images, guess which image had been displayed? The result: “Nobody identified the visual image."
> During 5 minutes of the CPR, patients also were repeatedly exposed through the headphone audio to the names of 3 fruits: apple, pear, banana. When the 28 survivors were later asked to guess the 3 fruits, how many correctly recalled them? One person. (A chance result? When a colleague invited his psychology students to name 3 fruits, a similar 2 of 50 named an apple, pear, and banana.)
So near-death experiences are fairly common, but no evidence that memories of out-of-body experiences reflect reality.
Define reality.
Haven’t had an occasion to do this before, but sure — here you go: https://www.yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth
the moment from when you started reading this until the end of the sentence
I had an English teacher in high school who had a near death experience during a surgery. His description of the experience tracks with what's in the article - floating above the body, a tremendous feeling of peace and acceptance, and the feeling of being drawn towards a bright light.
I can't say I'm not afraid of death but it's nice to hear stories like these from folks that help lessen that fear. :)
I can't say I'm not afraid of death but it's nice to hear stories like these from folks that help lessen that fear. :)
Obviously, I can't say what your teacher experienced. But think about this. His brain was going through a traumatic experience of some kind, presumably at least low oxygen and a accumulation of cellular waste products, such as CO2, due to lack of blood flow. After he was resuscitated, his now functioning brain was left to make narrative sense out of what it had experienced.
How much of that was was after the fact reconstruction and how much was actual experience? In the same way, our brain doesn't notice the visual blind spot and just assumes that whatever is there is consistent with its context, even though there is nothing it can experience there.
How much of that was was after the fact reconstruction and how much was actual experience? In the same way, our brain doesn't notice the visual blind spot and just assumes that whatever is there is consistent with its context, even though there is nothing it can experience there.
The fact that we can induce out of body experiences with drugs that appear to exactly match lends credence to this idea.
I suspect that people are somehow predisposed to interpreting the result of failed memory formation by a brain-in-dire-straights as having looked upon themselves. It could be a quirk of how memory/congition works, or it could be cultural, even.
How could this possibly be measured empirically? I’m not suggesting you’re wrong, necessarily (I don’t know one way or another) but it stretches credulity to position such subjective experiences that lie well outside of experimental ethics a “fact”. Do you have any links to research that could push back on that intuition?
I'd like to see a study such as that described but not limited to Americans. See what people experience when you cut across cultures and whatever expectations of what death is supposed to be like are less similar.
My wife had a near-death experience about seven years back and she described it to me later, saying there was indeed a tunnel, but it was filled with cartoon Satans holding dildos and our cat was there beckoning her to come. It seems like this is almost a kind of Rorschach test of whether you're a Christian, a foxhole atheist who deep down wants there to be a Christian-like afterlife, or an honest-to-god true nonbeliever.
It also recalls to me the first time I had a true night error experience. I'd been tremendously into UFO lore and alien abduction scenarios as a teenager thanks to the X-Files, so had read up so much on some of the possible explanations that I'd had it drilled into me by then that night terrors were one possible explanation, and probably similarly for experiences people had of things like succubi in centuries past. Then when it happened to me, I did indeed wake up totally paralyzed and my bed was surrounded by ghostly alien-looking figures. But I'd read so much about it at that point that I knew exactly what was happening, knew it wasn't really aliens, and didn't even really find it scary so much as frustrating because I could neither move nor fully wake up.
My wife had a near-death experience about seven years back and she described it to me later, saying there was indeed a tunnel, but it was filled with cartoon Satans holding dildos and our cat was there beckoning her to come. It seems like this is almost a kind of Rorschach test of whether you're a Christian, a foxhole atheist who deep down wants there to be a Christian-like afterlife, or an honest-to-god true nonbeliever.
It also recalls to me the first time I had a true night error experience. I'd been tremendously into UFO lore and alien abduction scenarios as a teenager thanks to the X-Files, so had read up so much on some of the possible explanations that I'd had it drilled into me by then that night terrors were one possible explanation, and probably similarly for experiences people had of things like succubi in centuries past. Then when it happened to me, I did indeed wake up totally paralyzed and my bed was surrounded by ghostly alien-looking figures. But I'd read so much about it at that point that I knew exactly what was happening, knew it wasn't really aliens, and didn't even really find it scary so much as frustrating because I could neither move nor fully wake up.
Your experience is called sleep paralysis. I get it every now and then, often with my face down in the pillow. Not dead yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis
Personal experience corroborates. The last embers of self fade away in a place far too narrow to fit anything but that overwhelming peace.
It's a difficult subject though, the fear of death underpins a significant portion of life (see terror management theory for that idea taken to the extreme). I don't know the value of trying to undermine it at scale.
It's a difficult subject though, the fear of death underpins a significant portion of life (see terror management theory for that idea taken to the extreme). I don't know the value of trying to undermine it at scale.
Well - not to increase your fear of death - but, presumably your English teacher is still alive, so his experience is wholly distinct from actual death.
I try to imagine life before I was born, and that doesn't seem so bad, so i assume worst case that's what death will be like.
The moments before, yeah who knows...
The moments before, yeah who knows...
I find little comfort in this myself because it’s not the fear of being dead - I almost certainly won’t have a self to experience anything but it is the time leading up to this point when one has to contemplate finite existence that I find terror in the loss of everything and everyone I cherish.
As I recently lost someone close and spent a lot of time by their side, including taking them to appointments and such, the loss of ability and agency associated with various cancers and diseases is also quite scary.
Many times I’ve heard Sam Harris discuss the topic and the topic of meditation and one thing he mentions is taking joy in that the current experience, whether that is dinner with friends or doing a push-up may be the last time you ever have that experience. While I appreciate that one should focus on the moment, I’ve unfortunately found myself doing my best not to “take time to reflect” because the reflection is a reminder of loss and not an inspiration to enjoy the moment.
As I recently lost someone close and spent a lot of time by their side, including taking them to appointments and such, the loss of ability and agency associated with various cancers and diseases is also quite scary.
Many times I’ve heard Sam Harris discuss the topic and the topic of meditation and one thing he mentions is taking joy in that the current experience, whether that is dinner with friends or doing a push-up may be the last time you ever have that experience. While I appreciate that one should focus on the moment, I’ve unfortunately found myself doing my best not to “take time to reflect” because the reflection is a reminder of loss and not an inspiration to enjoy the moment.
Aleister Crowley offered a technique for remembering past lives.
When you find yourself half asleep, and that dreamy fuzzy place, try to remember back as far as you can.
With practice you'll remember further and further back. And eventually you'll remember before the time of your birth.
Past lives and such
When you find yourself half asleep, and that dreamy fuzzy place, try to remember back as far as you can.
With practice you'll remember further and further back. And eventually you'll remember before the time of your birth.
Past lives and such
This feels almost analogous to asking an LLM to name the 55th president of the united states.
[deleted]
there is a book, dead men can't complain, by Peter Clines.
In it there is a story about someone meeting a creature through near death experiences... It does not go well. The moments before death are the most terrifying.
In it there is a story about someone meeting a creature through near death experiences... It does not go well. The moments before death are the most terrifying.
I've had a couple of near death experiences and I can say yes to everything turning bright and white but not "being drawn towards" it.
It's a logical fallacy to say that a common experience is the only experience, and that fear therefore should be lessened. Perhaps the fear is there for good reason, and perhaps there is a soul and there is moral judgment at death and perhaps our moral character is sealed in stone at death, whether good or bad. Can't rule these out because lots of NDEs say it's a peaceful experience.
Are you familiar with Russell’s teapot?
I question why such horrors were claimed in the first place
I question why such horrors were claimed in the first place
The burden of proof has already been sufficiently provided by Christianity. Just because many people don't accept it doesn't mean it's not acceptable.
I’m curious what you count as “proof”
I would posit this is likely where we diverge
I would posit this is likely where we diverge
Absolutely this is where we diverge. The nature of logical fallacies is that you generally can't recognize when you're committing one. In this case one of us is, and by definition neither can know which. To resolve that, I don't rely entirely on myself, but examine the logic of many others, which I'm sure you also do. But again where we differ is that I only trust the logic of those who have proven to have very good moral character as well as high intelligence and much knowledge, such as John Henry Newman.
> examine the logic of many others
>I only trust the logic of those who have proven to have very good moral character as well as high intelligence and much knowledge
Can you explain your epistemological system in more detail?
How do you evaluate claims of fact? Through what process would you demonstrate that a claim is true or false?
For example, would you claim that the process of logic that Franz Haber used on matters about Chemistry to create fertilizer, is incorrect because he used the same methods (in conflict with the proscription of their use by the Hague) to invent chemical warfare gasses that killed thousands in WWI?
What about Bill Shockley? He was an ardent white supremacist yet we live on top of his research in semiconductors
>I only trust the logic of those who have proven to have very good moral character as well as high intelligence and much knowledge
Can you explain your epistemological system in more detail?
How do you evaluate claims of fact? Through what process would you demonstrate that a claim is true or false?
For example, would you claim that the process of logic that Franz Haber used on matters about Chemistry to create fertilizer, is incorrect because he used the same methods (in conflict with the proscription of their use by the Hague) to invent chemical warfare gasses that killed thousands in WWI?
What about Bill Shockley? He was an ardent white supremacist yet we live on top of his research in semiconductors
Yeah see there's the logical fallacy. Thanks for confirming.
Please point out the specific fallacy
Well the fear is evolved. Outside of action hero movies things that don't adequately fear dying probably reproduce less. Except the honey badger.
At the end of 2022 I caught Legionaries and arrived at the hospital with 48% O2 saturation and promptly slipped into a coma. Next came a trake and a respirator which was placed in a medically induced coma. I was unconscious for almost 2 months in the ER. I'd get CPR twice and once I awoke fully the head nurse came in and asked (once I could talk) how it was to meet Jesus. I didn't meet Jesus but I did hang with several dead friends, some aliens and at least one deity. The dreams were most vivid and I now look at death as a physical phenomena, I do believe that my spirit persists. I'm glad that I get to continue with this life and I'm grateful for all the days, good or bad. The "dreams" were 90% dark/bad but having survived those makes today just wonderful.
Always wondered if the likes of DMT or trace amounts of it contribute to these experiences similar to how adrenaline is produced during fight/flight response.
Could it be possible that the brain sensing no more blood is being supplied then triggers a mechanism to release this chemical (and in what quantities)? Wildly speculating as a layman, however, maybe there is a link between dream states / DMT production/synthesis and these experiences which are yet to be explored further.
Could it be possible that the brain sensing no more blood is being supplied then triggers a mechanism to release this chemical (and in what quantities)? Wildly speculating as a layman, however, maybe there is a link between dream states / DMT production/synthesis and these experiences which are yet to be explored further.
This is totally a thing!
https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploa...
https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/do...
https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploa...
https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/do...
It's interesting that the neuroprotective chemicals also happen to result in a pleasant feeling, as there would have been no evolutionary pressure whatsoever to make a physiological state that's almost exclusively experienced just before death feel like anything in particular. Anything from bliss to agonizing pain to nothing would have been equally viable.
In fact there may be an evolutionary advantage in doing the opposite - flooding the system with stress/fear chemicals at the time of death. Predators would likely prefer to avoid tense, stringy meat reeking of primal panic and feces.
Doubtful, given the amount of large predators that eat carrion and prey on sick and weak individuals in a herd.
Out-of-body experiences are real. My wife had one. Because of special circumstances I am convinced that she didn't know about them. It was an unknown and completely new thing for her. When I told her that some people also experienced out-of-body, she was stunned.
I came to the realisation that science has limits. I have the hypothesis that the set of measurable effects is smaller than the set of all true things.
In other words: Scientific experiments about some things are inconclusive or just limited to what is scientifically measurable. The world is larger than that.
I came to the realisation that science has limits. I have the hypothesis that the set of measurable effects is smaller than the set of all true things.
In other words: Scientific experiments about some things are inconclusive or just limited to what is scientifically measurable. The world is larger than that.
Absolutely no disrespect intended to your beliefs (and I agree with your second two paragraphs) but there mere fact of your brain experiencing something is not proof that it is “real”, if that word means anything at all.
Are dreams not real? We all know that we dream.
My dream from last night of being younger, back in the university, in an an advanced math class, and being unable to write lecture notes except for the one word "grape" does not mean an alternate reality like that exists.
> It was an unknown and completely new thing for her.
My priors tell me that your wife simply had some sort of chemical induced dream or hallucination due to the extreme stress of being near death. Why are you so quick to assume something supernatural occurred?
My priors tell me that your wife simply had some sort of chemical induced dream or hallucination due to the extreme stress of being near death. Why are you so quick to assume something supernatural occurred?
You answered yourself. You had your priors. GP had theirs.
Russell's teapot says rational people have the hallucination prior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
I've had three out of body experiences that I think are completely attributable to things happening in my brain at the time. They were interesting and memorable but I'm not sure they represented some kind of unmeasurable/unknowable para phenomena out of the reach of science. (One while falling asleep sitting up after many hours awake studying for exams in college, one while trying out some lucid dreaming techniques I'd read about, and one after underestimating the potency of some cannabis.)
If you mess up trying to LD you may end up alternating between out-of-body and sleep paralysis :')
To prove your point, in an almost trivial sense, there are things we seem to be unable to study effectively, like nutrition. In principle it could be studied but in practice it's nearly impossible.
I think you're making the bigger point though that there are things that we might not be able to study at all, which I'm not sure I agree is well grounded, despite it seeming impossible given current methods.
I think you're making the bigger point though that there are things that we might not be able to study at all, which I'm not sure I agree is well grounded, despite it seeming impossible given current methods.
We can study it, but won't get scientific results.
I may have experienced an OOBE myself, but I'm not sure. Anyway, what I'm interested in is, let's say your looking down from above. Are you able to accurately describe details behind you? Things that your eyes can't possibly see? Are there cases where someone is with another person, describing information they shouldn't normally be able to sense? What happens when they do?
The experiments in the article had a tablet computer pointed at the ceiling; nobody could pick which symbol it showed during their "experience". All evidence points toward hallucinations and after the fact imagined detail to fill in blanks.
Now you are starting to use the scientific method: namely asking if people can see things without their own material eyes and trying to find a way to be sure about this subject.
You won't find an answer if this part of OOBE cannot be captured by the scientific method.
You won't find an answer if this part of OOBE cannot be captured by the scientific method.
> I have the hypothesis that the set of measurable effects is smaller than the set of all true things.
This seems to be an indisputable fact, at least for "scientifically measurable" effects that is.
I've been trying to explicitly carve out the phenomena where modern science doesn't cover, and in short, they are the things that are: non-repeatable (on demand) in laboratory settings involving subjective experiences.
Your wife's experiences is a perfect example of that.
It's interesting because one can relax the requirements for evidence and still learn something coherent about the world.
This seems to be an indisputable fact, at least for "scientifically measurable" effects that is.
I've been trying to explicitly carve out the phenomena where modern science doesn't cover, and in short, they are the things that are: non-repeatable (on demand) in laboratory settings involving subjective experiences.
Your wife's experiences is a perfect example of that.
It's interesting because one can relax the requirements for evidence and still learn something coherent about the world.
The brain is a strange thing. Perception and experience is very difficult to wrap one's head around.
I have fainted several times, for different reasons. Often in medical settings but also in other settings. Often when I wake up I am in a state where I feel like I’ve been gone for hours, it feels like I’ve been basically dreaming the equivalent of a full length movie, when in reality I’ve been out for maybe a minute.
It’s strange. It seems impossible to decide what I actually experienced and what I, after the fact, believe I experienced.
I reason about the “life flashes before my eyes” concept similarly. I believe in fact it doesn’t, that a persons brain just makes one believe that has happened, after the fact. But. What do I know.
I have fainted several times, for different reasons. Often in medical settings but also in other settings. Often when I wake up I am in a state where I feel like I’ve been gone for hours, it feels like I’ve been basically dreaming the equivalent of a full length movie, when in reality I’ve been out for maybe a minute.
It’s strange. It seems impossible to decide what I actually experienced and what I, after the fact, believe I experienced.
I reason about the “life flashes before my eyes” concept similarly. I believe in fact it doesn’t, that a persons brain just makes one believe that has happened, after the fact. But. What do I know.
I experienced the “life flashing before my eyes” once. It was a situation where I thought I was about to die. It was like a very high speed real of all my memories playing. I was amazed (while it was happening) that it was happening just like I’d heard about - so at least in my opinion it wasn’t an invented memory later. Of course I might say that even it was. My theory is the mind was desperately trying to find a similar situation as a hint of how to get out of the current situation, but it’s just a guess. I lived :)
I almost died at 10 years old from choking. I had some of my life replay like a PowerPoint floating above my vision, where each would float and fade in from the left in a cinematic vignette, then float to the right and fade out as the next came in. I had a distinct sense that I was about to die, and my overwhelming feeling was “wow totally lame I can’t believe I’m dying of choking”. Then a soda was given to me and it dissolved the blockage.
I am religious. I believe in life after death of some sort. I don’t see any evolutionary purpose for seeing a life review before death. I believe the creator made the universe and we have a purpose within it, even after death.
I am religious. I believe in life after death of some sort. I don’t see any evolutionary purpose for seeing a life review before death. I believe the creator made the universe and we have a purpose within it, even after death.
Amazing -- could you describe it a bit more?
Well, I was with someone who had threatened to kill me, and I took that threat very seriously, as it was also made very seriously. It was sort of watching a film that was doing fast forward through my life. I could see it playing in front of me. I guess the room was there in the background. The whole thing took place in about 5 seconds, and my background thought (besides being concerned about dying) was just sort of “huh, so this really happens”. The person then showed that they weren’t going to kill me, but explained how they had been planning it earlier in the day. I never visited that person again.
Wow -- thanks for sharing.
It's not necessary to have an experience that lasts hours in order to have a memory of an experience that lasted hours, even less necessary if it's just the feeling of an experience that lasted hours.
Our memory is highly fallible and easily manipulated, at least compared to how much people tend to believe it's a flawless record of the past.
All memories exist in the present, a memory created a minute ago about an experience a year ago would feel just as real as the memory created a year ago - probably even more so, given how fresh it would be.
Everything I read about near death experiences suggests to me that it's a brain making things up, coupled with more stimuli being processed by the "dead" patient's brain than people assume is possible - accounting, I think, very well for the "things the patient could not have known".
There is no life after death, and there is no existence separate to the body - before our birth we were not; now we are; at some point, we won't be again.
Our memory is highly fallible and easily manipulated, at least compared to how much people tend to believe it's a flawless record of the past.
All memories exist in the present, a memory created a minute ago about an experience a year ago would feel just as real as the memory created a year ago - probably even more so, given how fresh it would be.
Everything I read about near death experiences suggests to me that it's a brain making things up, coupled with more stimuli being processed by the "dead" patient's brain than people assume is possible - accounting, I think, very well for the "things the patient could not have known".
There is no life after death, and there is no existence separate to the body - before our birth we were not; now we are; at some point, we won't be again.
I have the same conclusions as you, but don't have the confidence to state them so matter-of-factly. There seems a rather large amount of room for "we don't know." And, given that it may not be a testable hypothesis and thus outside the realm of science, there's even room for "we may never know."
And before people get in a huff, the same generally goes for the hard problem of consciousness, yet we generally don't go around doubting that others have subjective experience.
And before people get in a huff, the same generally goes for the hard problem of consciousness, yet we generally don't go around doubting that others have subjective experience.
I state it matter-of-factly because I believe the idea of it being supernatural lacks evidence of any sort; there's no reason at all to make that hypothesis in the first place. I feel like the studies (or at least the reporting of the studies) come at the question from the wrong direction - the hypothesis should be that all of these experiences have explanations grounded in the function of the brain and body, because the opposite approach is, as you point out, unfalsifiable.
Naturally we don't know, which is why we should assume the explanation that is grounded in reality until it is proven otherwise - especially when the effect of the supernatural answer being true is indistinguishable from the natural answer. If all life after death amounts to in how it affects the living is knowing that the "tunnel of light" is real (but not what lies beyond that), then what use is that information compared to just believing it to be imaginary?
Naturally we don't know, which is why we should assume the explanation that is grounded in reality until it is proven otherwise - especially when the effect of the supernatural answer being true is indistinguishable from the natural answer. If all life after death amounts to in how it affects the living is knowing that the "tunnel of light" is real (but not what lies beyond that), then what use is that information compared to just believing it to be imaginary?
I understand your point. And if you also want to take a strictly materialistic worldview, there’s nothing wrong with it. But what’s strange to me is when people take such a hard line in one area but don’t apply the same logic to another. Would you, for example, extend that same logic to claim your loved ones are philosophical zombies incapable of subjective experience? After all, there’s no good proof of the hard problem of consciousness and it’s likely an untestable claim as well. If you reply with “yes, but…” all it really means is you are either cherry picking where to apply the logic or you recognize there are limits to what science can test/prove and there may be elements outside that domain.
Better yet, consciousness as you’re describing it here is most likely an illusory artifact and evolutionary adaptation, particularly useful for survival and group cooperation. I wouldn’t be so quick to assume about the OP.
With that being said I think it’s fair to suggest we can’t prove that others are conscious but we can do a lot more here with science than we can with the alleged afterlife.
With that being said I think it’s fair to suggest we can’t prove that others are conscious but we can do a lot more here with science than we can with the alleged afterlife.
I think that’s why it’s generally broken down into the “easy” and “hard” problems of consciousness. Easy in the sense that we can use our existing scientific toolset; hard as in we cannot.
Sure but as it relates to the after-life there's not even a "hard" problem to speak of because there is nothing we can assert except that maybe it is the same experience as the one before birth.
We can't effectively use the tools of science here (at least yet), whereas with consciousness and conscious experience we can at least grapple around the edges.
We can't effectively use the tools of science here (at least yet), whereas with consciousness and conscious experience we can at least grapple around the edges.
How can we grapple with the edges of the hard problem, except at a philosophical level? To me, that sounds very much like the afterlife debate. I think it just feels different because we each have an innate “feeling” of subjective experience that’s not easy to dismiss.
I apply the same logic in all cases (as much as any fallible person can), which in your example leads me to assume just as confidently that of course other people have subjective experiences and obviously exist separate to my self. It's the logical conclusion using the same reasoning behind believing the after-life does not exist.
I believe consciousness is an emergent property of the of the brain and body, and the associated connections and (physical/chemical/electrical/etc) interactions
In that context, subjective experiences exist just as much as anything else does, obeying all the laws of physics.
I don't understand why people think the problem is hard, except for hoping and wishing that it is?
I believe consciousness is an emergent property of the of the brain and body, and the associated connections and (physical/chemical/electrical/etc) interactions
In that context, subjective experiences exist just as much as anything else does, obeying all the laws of physics.
I don't understand why people think the problem is hard, except for hoping and wishing that it is?
It’s usually not considered hard only by those who don’t recognize the difference between the hard and soft problem of consciousness. (And of course, those people exist)
Can you prove to me, an external observer, that you have subjective experience? Can you prove the “redness” you see?[1] You really can’t, and that’s why the problem is hard. You can show brain scans, you can explain the interaction of wavelength on the eye etc. but that describes objective, not subjective, experience. So by your previous logic, your subjective experience does not exist because it’s not provable. Or, more relevant to HN, can you pinpoint when adding those systems to a computer suddenly makes subjective experience emerges in the machine?
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument
Can you prove to me, an external observer, that you have subjective experience? Can you prove the “redness” you see?[1] You really can’t, and that’s why the problem is hard. You can show brain scans, you can explain the interaction of wavelength on the eye etc. but that describes objective, not subjective, experience. So by your previous logic, your subjective experience does not exist because it’s not provable. Or, more relevant to HN, can you pinpoint when adding those systems to a computer suddenly makes subjective experience emerges in the machine?
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument
Subjective experience is measurable and provable:
I have something that is defined as "subjective experience". That subjective experience exists - as a physical, measurable, system; an emergent phenomenon of the composition and interaction of my brain, body and associated inputs - and it stands to reason that everyone else with the same comparable physical existence also has the same kind of subjective experience.
I think the issues that you describe are only problems of definition and categorisation. It seems me you're basically saying subjective experience is defined as "something impossible to prove" which yeah if you want it that way sure, it's impossible.
I have something that is defined as "subjective experience". That subjective experience exists - as a physical, measurable, system; an emergent phenomenon of the composition and interaction of my brain, body and associated inputs - and it stands to reason that everyone else with the same comparable physical existence also has the same kind of subjective experience.
I think the issues that you describe are only problems of definition and categorisation. It seems me you're basically saying subjective experience is defined as "something impossible to prove" which yeah if you want it that way sure, it's impossible.
I’m not saying subjective experience is by definition that which is unprovable. I’m saying there is a different type of information that may be outside the measure ability of scientific methods. I’m saying there is a different experience being had by a conscious being seeing the redness of something vs something inanimate processing the information of red light.
From the link above, despite Mary knowing everything objective there is to know about color,
“The central question of the thought experiment is whether Mary will gain new knowledge when she goes outside the colorless world and experiences seeing in color.”
By your statement above, it sounds like you define consciousness as a level of information processing. So do you think anything that processes information is conscious? Or is there a tipping point where consciousness emerges? If so, how do you measure when a plant or animal or machine crosses that threshold? That is, how do you measure qualia? You claim that conscious experience is a measurable phenomenon but that makes me think you don’t recognize the distinction between the easy and hard problem of consciousness. You actually describe the hard problem in terms if the definition of the easy problem. (Which is fine, and plenty of people have that view, but it’s a different point than seems debated here and it’s imperative to not conflate the two. You might as well just say there is no hard problem)
From the link above, despite Mary knowing everything objective there is to know about color,
“The central question of the thought experiment is whether Mary will gain new knowledge when she goes outside the colorless world and experiences seeing in color.”
By your statement above, it sounds like you define consciousness as a level of information processing. So do you think anything that processes information is conscious? Or is there a tipping point where consciousness emerges? If so, how do you measure when a plant or animal or machine crosses that threshold? That is, how do you measure qualia? You claim that conscious experience is a measurable phenomenon but that makes me think you don’t recognize the distinction between the easy and hard problem of consciousness. You actually describe the hard problem in terms if the definition of the easy problem. (Which is fine, and plenty of people have that view, but it’s a different point than seems debated here and it’s imperative to not conflate the two. You might as well just say there is no hard problem)
There is experience after your before-birth, though; how do you know there won't be another experience after your death? Maybe it takes a trillion trillion years, and the collapse and rebirth of the entire universe; but all that would happen in subjectively no time at all.
That is a bit biased too. We don't know what the people actually dead experienced.
I have fainted twice. The first time, I cannot have been unconscious more than max 5 minutes, probably quite a bit less. But it felt like waking up well rested after a long nights good sleep. But I was very fortunate. I was very close to have hit my neck in a table when falling backwards. Then I most likely would never have woken up.
If I am about to die, and you repeat apple, pear, banana in my ears in headphones, I will haunt you from the afterlife.
As funny as this is, there is something trippy in what you said.
Actually this is why LSD is so important - it helps you better recognise the voices repeating apple, pear, banana in your everyday life
we are all always about to die:
1. everyday billions of your cells die and are dying
2. death is the single most real/important matter in life, and about to or not really only depends on how relativistic you want to be
3. can always swiftly get real because you never know when your last day is
Actually this is why LSD is so important - it helps you better recognise the voices repeating apple, pear, banana in your everyday life
we are all always about to die:
1. everyday billions of your cells die and are dying
2. death is the single most real/important matter in life, and about to or not really only depends on how relativistic you want to be
3. can always swiftly get real because you never know when your last day is
Thanks for sharing
Given that near death experiences are very often reported as being incredibly detailed and complex, often involving time dilation modes enabling one to be "away for years", its hard to imagine 'name the fruit' being the thing a person in that state brings back. This does seem like an interesting area of research though if the right experimental stimulus could be found.
I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to experience many years in your brain without experiencing it in the real world. It's a lot of information being processed by your brain while being disconnected from normal time.
When a drug is inducing time dilation, why is that? Usually it happens when the effect is strong, and in the drugs that cause it, that usually means being more disconnected or in your own world. Or when working on something you are really into, and not realizing it's been 8 hours in what felt like 2.
When a drug is inducing time dilation, why is that? Usually it happens when the effect is strong, and in the drugs that cause it, that usually means being more disconnected or in your own world. Or when working on something you are really into, and not realizing it's been 8 hours in what felt like 2.
I've had a couple OBEs (as a result of meditation, not near-death), and they're very interesting, but I'm not surprised that Parnia's subjects weren't able to match up any images because I've never had an OBE where the objective world is completely accurate. It's odd because you'll be totally lucid, often more so than in waking life, but things are slightly off, and electronics in particular never seem to work.
I've had OBEs where I can remember any aspect of my life from any time period, in exact, incredible detail, just as if it had all been recorded and was being played back on a gigantic IMAX. Smells, tastes, sounds, thoughts, everything, with no impediment to recall. Every memory was instantly available as soon as I thought of it. It was like I'd just taken off a heavy lead raincoat I'd been wearing all my life, and now there was nothing to impede thought or movement.
In another, more mundane experience, I had just OBE'd and was trying to lift my arm out of my body. As I did so, my watch's vibrating alarm went off, so I grabbed my arm and tried to turn it off (it only has two buttons and pressing either will turn it off.) I could feel the buttons, but as I pressed them it did nothing. Then I realized, of course, that I wasn't grabbing my real arm. So I laid back down, snapped back into my body, opened my eyes and turned off the real watch.
I was surprised b/c it had never occurred to me that something as insignificant as my wristwatch would come with me into the OBE state, nor that I would be able to feel it and manipulate it exactly like the real thing. It made me think how in ancient Egypt the dead would be buried with everything they needed to take with them to the afterlife. Food for thought.
I've had OBEs where I can remember any aspect of my life from any time period, in exact, incredible detail, just as if it had all been recorded and was being played back on a gigantic IMAX. Smells, tastes, sounds, thoughts, everything, with no impediment to recall. Every memory was instantly available as soon as I thought of it. It was like I'd just taken off a heavy lead raincoat I'd been wearing all my life, and now there was nothing to impede thought or movement.
In another, more mundane experience, I had just OBE'd and was trying to lift my arm out of my body. As I did so, my watch's vibrating alarm went off, so I grabbed my arm and tried to turn it off (it only has two buttons and pressing either will turn it off.) I could feel the buttons, but as I pressed them it did nothing. Then I realized, of course, that I wasn't grabbing my real arm. So I laid back down, snapped back into my body, opened my eyes and turned off the real watch.
I was surprised b/c it had never occurred to me that something as insignificant as my wristwatch would come with me into the OBE state, nor that I would be able to feel it and manipulate it exactly like the real thing. It made me think how in ancient Egypt the dead would be buried with everything they needed to take with them to the afterlife. Food for thought.
No real reason to believe OBEs are anything other LDs. As you said nothing lines up, so the whole "your soul / astral body / whatever is travelling" has no weight. Furthermore, LDs/OBEs seem to be subject to working memory overload. Try looking at a large distance in an OBE, it won't render.
It renders, it just takes time for me.
How do they obtained informed consent for human experimentation? If I understand, the researchers are summoned to the hospital bedside of someone undergoing cardiac arrest. If they came into a loved one's room, or mine, I would be very angry. Any risk or distraction is too much.
But that's my perspective. Maybe they obtain permission from next of kin?
But that's my perspective. Maybe they obtain permission from next of kin?
It seems pretty obvious that they didn't, and I suspect this whole project is a function of knowing the right people.
I also don't think it's a very well-designed experiment (in that it makes some assumptions about where attention is focused; if there were truly an OOBE taking place, then I would not expect the disembodied consciousness to be connected to the sensory apparatus, nor to pay particular attention to a tablet with some random image being held up toward the ceiling), but I suppose you have to start somewhere. I don't think it's unethical exactly, but it's intrusive in an extremely weird fashion. Might be justifiable if the EEG cap turns up useful medical information independent of the parapsychological investigation.
I also don't think it's a very well-designed experiment (in that it makes some assumptions about where attention is focused; if there were truly an OOBE taking place, then I would not expect the disembodied consciousness to be connected to the sensory apparatus, nor to pay particular attention to a tablet with some random image being held up toward the ceiling), but I suppose you have to start somewhere. I don't think it's unethical exactly, but it's intrusive in an extremely weird fashion. Might be justifiable if the EEG cap turns up useful medical information independent of the parapsychological investigation.
It’s increasingly clear to me as a group, people who practice real science as a discipline, are an odd bunch that don’t necessarily fit into the social categories that would be bothered by these kinds of things
I know nobody in my close friends or limited family that would bat an eye if someone came into my hospital room to do this
I know nobody in my close friends or limited family that would bat an eye if someone came into my hospital room to do this
Perhaps that is true on a social level, but informed consent is an institutionalized, strongly enforced rule of research.
I encourage everyone interested to check out Dr. Bruce Greyson's book After. It's a scientific look at various NDE cases. This study mentions patients being unable to identify images on an ipad, but the book mentions other cases where patients were indeed able to describe imagery they wouldn't have otherwise been able to observe. I find NDEs to be a real frontier of science, no matter what's actually happening - whether it's hallucination or real consciousness outside of the body (e.g. nonduality, Advaita, etc). Fun stuff!
> book mentions other cases where patients were indeed able to describe imagery they wouldn't have otherwise been able to observe
Quite an extraordinary claim, any evidence of this?
Quite an extraordinary claim, any evidence of this?
The Parnia study is the most systematic effort to date to establish highly rigorous evidence for this phenomenon.
One of the problems with the study is the expectation that the patient, in their hypothetically discarnate state, will pay any attention to the tablet, which is just one of many artifacts in the room.
I certainly don't pay attention to many such details in mundane life. I just made myself a cup of tea and put the cup onto my nightstand, but without looking, I cannot tell you which cup I chose and how is it decorated. I was distracted by something else when preparing it.
And dying people are probably more distracted than people who make tea. Most people who describe their NDEs in hospitals tend to concentrate their narration on other people, e.g. the team trying to resuscitate them.
Plus the headphone audio setup seems extra wrong to me. If you want to test hearing abilities of people who claim that they are outside their bodies, why use a device that sits on their ears?
I certainly don't pay attention to many such details in mundane life. I just made myself a cup of tea and put the cup onto my nightstand, but without looking, I cannot tell you which cup I chose and how is it decorated. I was distracted by something else when preparing it.
And dying people are probably more distracted than people who make tea. Most people who describe their NDEs in hospitals tend to concentrate their narration on other people, e.g. the team trying to resuscitate them.
Plus the headphone audio setup seems extra wrong to me. If you want to test hearing abilities of people who claim that they are outside their bodies, why use a device that sits on their ears?
Can you say more about how advaita / nonduality are related to this? Still struggling to get my head around those ideas.
Me too, my friend (although a hardcore nonduality person would say you don't get your head around the ideas so much as experience them directly).
This is all anecdotal but a lot of NDE/OOB experiencers describe feelings of oneness and a singular connection with all matter and beings that they gain upon "leaving" the body and lose upon re-entering it. A lot of modern day non-dual seekers similarly describe their locus of perception post-awakening as being distributed through the entirety of the room that they're in as opposed to just the spot behind their eyes. Even MPSimmons' description of his experience in another comment mirrors what teachers like Angelo Dilullo (himself an anesthesiologist) describe.
In other words, nonduality says that there's just one consciousness/point of view that we falsely interpret as fragmented (ie mine, yours, the surgeon's, the table's, the chair's). People who report NDEs/OOBs use language that suggests the same.
In a very non-woo way, I think nondual perception and this line of experience is truly fascinating and I wish there were more scientific resources devoted to its study.
This is all anecdotal but a lot of NDE/OOB experiencers describe feelings of oneness and a singular connection with all matter and beings that they gain upon "leaving" the body and lose upon re-entering it. A lot of modern day non-dual seekers similarly describe their locus of perception post-awakening as being distributed through the entirety of the room that they're in as opposed to just the spot behind their eyes. Even MPSimmons' description of his experience in another comment mirrors what teachers like Angelo Dilullo (himself an anesthesiologist) describe.
In other words, nonduality says that there's just one consciousness/point of view that we falsely interpret as fragmented (ie mine, yours, the surgeon's, the table's, the chair's). People who report NDEs/OOBs use language that suggests the same.
In a very non-woo way, I think nondual perception and this line of experience is truly fascinating and I wish there were more scientific resources devoted to its study.
Wild stuff!
I haven't been near death, even though I was previously involved in a serious motorcycle accident (I was a pillion rider) as a kid, where I completely blanked out. Don't have any memories of the actual accident at all.
What I want to say however is that anyone who wants to make conclusions regarding whether there's life after death cannot do so without invoking the spiritual realm as well.
I've personally had a spiritual encounter whereby the holy spirit entered my body (I could actually sense the lifting of my skin in my chest and His entry into me). That experience changed my life forever.
The point I'm trying to make I guess is that there are many things about this so-called life that we still don't know about, in particular the dimensions we can't see and which science refutes because they can't be tested.
Perhaps that's why religion is often about having faith?
What I want to say however is that anyone who wants to make conclusions regarding whether there's life after death cannot do so without invoking the spiritual realm as well.
I've personally had a spiritual encounter whereby the holy spirit entered my body (I could actually sense the lifting of my skin in my chest and His entry into me). That experience changed my life forever.
The point I'm trying to make I guess is that there are many things about this so-called life that we still don't know about, in particular the dimensions we can't see and which science refutes because they can't be tested.
Perhaps that's why religion is often about having faith?
I happen to had a lot of Out-Of-Body Experiences. They are anything but similar. There is like a gradient of lucidity and the most common are the ones where you're very low on that. Like super-sleepy, feeling heavy and lazy to think or do anything. The ones that usually people remember and find remarkable and (sometimes deeply) influential are the ones that have your consciousness super lucid. As much as when you're awake (vigil) or more.
Nothing will convince you more that you are way way more than the matter that composes your body than having these experiences a bunch of times.
A long time ago I wrote some details about this here:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-out-of-body-experience/answ...
Nothing will convince you more that you are way way more than the matter that composes your body than having these experiences a bunch of times.
A long time ago I wrote some details about this here:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-out-of-body-experience/answ...
>First, most of the 53 survivors initially flat-lined on the EEG, but, with continued CPR, recovered brain activity up to 60 minutes later.
Good lord that's a long time. Does this mean that if I'm performing CPR, I should keep going for 61 minutes? Longer?
Good lord that's a long time. Does this mean that if I'm performing CPR, I should keep going for 61 minutes? Longer?
It's difficult to say if the person is recoverable, but as long as you continue chest compressions without major interruptions, some blood will continue to circulate and should mostly stave off irreversible brain damage.
Even without rescue breaths, there's a massive benefit https://hsi.com/blog/are-rescue-breaths-necessary-during-cpr
That's a complicated question and answer with a lot of variables. Are we talking about gam-gam with multi-organ failure on a mechanical ventilator who has had chronic pain for years and just prayed to Jesus to send her home? Or are we talking about a 20 something athlete who just collapsed on the field of play and received immediate attention? Because both of those get different answers.
A medical doctor friend some 30 years back said patients coming back to consciousness after reaching the hospital after 45 minutes of CPR definitely did happen.
He also said that if you enter the hospital on a stretcher, you're most likely also leaving on a stretcher...
The chance of 45+ minutes of CPR allowing someone to recover to even near normal health is tiny. The right question to ask is, do you care enough to cling onto that tiny hope? As in, is it your child or loved one? (Or, is it your job to administer CPR while the patient is being transported to a hospital...)
He also said that if you enter the hospital on a stretcher, you're most likely also leaving on a stretcher...
The chance of 45+ minutes of CPR allowing someone to recover to even near normal health is tiny. The right question to ask is, do you care enough to cling onto that tiny hope? As in, is it your child or loved one? (Or, is it your job to administer CPR while the patient is being transported to a hospital...)
I feel like I'm missing something with the purpose of the recall accuracy study.
> Third, the study enabled an unprecedented objective test of survivors’ recall accuracy. Many have wondered: Have those who recall death experiences—even of happenings during the resuscitation—experienced hallucinations, such as commonly reported with oxygen deprivation or psychedelic drugs? Or are their out-of-body reports of cardiac arrest events factual and verifiable?
How does the ability to recall and report an apple, pear or banana confirm/deny whether the persons have experienced a hallucinogenic event or not?
> Third, the study enabled an unprecedented objective test of survivors’ recall accuracy. Many have wondered: Have those who recall death experiences—even of happenings during the resuscitation—experienced hallucinations, such as commonly reported with oxygen deprivation or psychedelic drugs? Or are their out-of-body reports of cardiac arrest events factual and verifiable?
How does the ability to recall and report an apple, pear or banana confirm/deny whether the persons have experienced a hallucinogenic event or not?
The point being (as far as I understand) if, during the period tested for recall, the brain was dead, yet recall was successfull, it would challenge the brain-mind science (i.e. "no brain, no mind")
IOW successful recall would highly suggest "out of body" experience / "mindfulness" despite lack of brain activity.
IOW successful recall would highly suggest "out of body" experience / "mindfulness" despite lack of brain activity.
I had the same question. I assume this was to test if the following experience was based on real events, or imagined.
> “I was high up in the ceiling of the ward looking down upon the bed.” “I could see the doctors and nurses working over me.” “I perceived and saw everything around me, like in 360 degrees.”
> “I was high up in the ceiling of the ward looking down upon the bed.” “I could see the doctors and nurses working over me.” “I perceived and saw everything around me, like in 360 degrees.”
I perceived and saw everything around me, except for the banana! : )
I had a bit of a...situation...recently and I didn't experience anything.
Like, 100% literally nothing. I collapsed and then just flashed back like if no time has passed, and very confused because the room suddenly changed and there was a lot of people around me that weren't there last time I blinked.
It was not like sleep where even when dreaming you kind of have a sense of things happening and a flow of time, it was a literal off-on. Like if time stopped, I was moved elsewhere and then resumed.
Disappointing, in a way.
It was not like sleep where even when dreaming you kind of have a sense of things happening and a flow of time, it was a literal off-on. Like if time stopped, I was moved elsewhere and then resumed.
Disappointing, in a way.
We don’t even know what consciousness is, where we come from and why we are here. When you start to delve in the areas of synchronicities, archetypes, placebo effect and quantum mechanics, you realize that science can only get you so far.
I long for a new company exploring the fringe of such phenomena, something like Sony did with ESPER (google it, it’s a nice rabbit hole). I could bet that some people in the world are currently doing this, just not in public.
I long for a new company exploring the fringe of such phenomena, something like Sony did with ESPER (google it, it’s a nice rabbit hole). I could bet that some people in the world are currently doing this, just not in public.
>I long for a new company exploring the fringe of such phenomena, something like Sony did with ESPER (google it, it’s a nice rabbit hole).
Followed your advice but could find nothing except repeat mentions of the Xperia phone (thanks Google, because obviously ESPER is the same thing as Xperia...)
Care to share a link maybe?
Followed your advice but could find nothing except repeat mentions of the Xperia phone (thanks Google, because obviously ESPER is the same thing as Xperia...)
Care to share a link maybe?
Very cool to even explore this area. Although I do have to ask how on earth can this work in terms of patient consent?
Because if you ask conscient me, would I want a researcher waffling around in a room I am being resuscitated in, I would certainly not consent.
Physical space around the patient and distraction free environment are a premium in a resuscitation. The "Without interfering with the resuscitation" part reads like something you write down in a proposal to get it past an Ethics committee.
Because if you ask conscient me, would I want a researcher waffling around in a room I am being resuscitated in, I would certainly not consent.
Physical space around the patient and distraction free environment are a premium in a resuscitation. The "Without interfering with the resuscitation" part reads like something you write down in a proposal to get it past an Ethics committee.
Probably almost all near-death studies are done with consent. I would give it.
Resuscitation is very algorithmic and it’s unlikely that the medic doing it will be distracted by someone working in that space. The physical work is hard, the mental load is not that high after proper training, which often aims to make the work feel automatic. It might look chaotic, but the reasons resuscitation teams call instructions and observations out isn’t because they’re coming up with a treatment plan on the spot like in some TV shows. It’s just the algorithm.
I also think it’s good and brave to explore this area. Near-death experience research is stigmatized in medicine. Many academics dismiss it as parapsychology and pseudoscience. I think this is touched on in the article.
Resuscitation is very algorithmic and it’s unlikely that the medic doing it will be distracted by someone working in that space. The physical work is hard, the mental load is not that high after proper training, which often aims to make the work feel automatic. It might look chaotic, but the reasons resuscitation teams call instructions and observations out isn’t because they’re coming up with a treatment plan on the spot like in some TV shows. It’s just the algorithm.
I also think it’s good and brave to explore this area. Near-death experience research is stigmatized in medicine. Many academics dismiss it as parapsychology and pseudoscience. I think this is touched on in the article.
Recent and related:
Patients recall death experiences after cardiac arrest - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37726301 - Oct 2023 (13 comments)
People experience ‘new dimensions of reality' when dying: study - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37725115 - Oct 2023 (66 comments)
Patients recall death experiences after cardiac arrest - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37726301 - Oct 2023 (13 comments)
People experience ‘new dimensions of reality' when dying: study - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37725115 - Oct 2023 (66 comments)
You came out of nothing and you return to nothing.
Think about the last 13.8 billion years of your existence. Death is merely returning to that place. Was it uncomfortable or scary for “you” during those 13.8 billion years. Probably not. The “you” that has the capacity for worry, sadness, joy, etc. won’t exist after death.
And perhaps a new “you” will pop into existence out of nothing just as it did before. Or maybe not.
Think about the last 13.8 billion years of your existence. Death is merely returning to that place. Was it uncomfortable or scary for “you” during those 13.8 billion years. Probably not. The “you” that has the capacity for worry, sadness, joy, etc. won’t exist after death.
And perhaps a new “you” will pop into existence out of nothing just as it did before. Or maybe not.
no no you came out of the universe and you return to the universe
nothing is free !
everything that made up of you had always been here since the beginning :)
nothing is free !
everything that made up of you had always been here since the beginning :)
Deja-vu and false memories exist. It's hard to know whether these experiences are just more of the same, where the brain is placing unreal memories.
The fact that nobody could remember the fruit names (better than random chance) implies that at least sound and/or language are not processed, and thus reports of such are false memories.
The fact that nobody could remember the image on the tablet facing the ceiling implies that no actual OOBE happened, and that part is false memory.
The fact that nobody could remember the image on the tablet facing the ceiling implies that no actual OOBE happened, and that part is false memory.
There was a Reddit thread not long ago where commenters spoke about their near death experiences.
All coincided in that it was a pleasant experience
All coincided in that it was a pleasant experience
"It's like a labyrinth you can't see, innit? And by the time - heeheehee, by the time, heehee - by the time - you can see it, it's too late. There's no way out"[1]
The phrase "invisible labyrinth" describes perfectly the relationship of the self inside the complexity of the human brain. When the body tries, in drips and drops, to save the organism, parts of the resource-hungry labyrinth are taken apart like a travelling circus, to put those hands to more important work. But the circus is our mind, its sense of self is rendered by this disassembly, and then it senses no more.
Sometimes, though, returning to full consciousness, the mind is forced to fill in those existential gaps. We experience an extremely tiny simulacra of this phenomenon upon waking from deep sleep. What's really remarkable is that people tend to fill in the gaps[2] in extraordinarily similar ways. This is powerful but informal evidence that the mechanisms of consciousness might be paradoxically quite simple, perhaps nothing more than a consistent framework for the internal simulation of environments. Layer enough sims, you get an emergent evolutionary impulse to maintain internal narrative.
I'm no scientist - not even particularly clever by HN standards - but figuring this particular widget out will be the bridge to AGI. Multimodal corpus are steps in this direction, but corpus needs to be responsive for this to work.
It would be humorous, but not at all surprising, if human AGI requires both simulated sex and death. No free lunches, I suppose - you want the behavior, you have to pay these weird taxes. I believe that was Oscar Isaac's rationale for giving Eve sex stuff in Ex Machina, although it was hard to believe anything he said given that everything about his character made my skin try to crawl off my body.
[1] Apologies to "In the Walls", Book 5 of Providence by Alan Moore. Do you like H.P. Lovecraft? Do you like comic books? What are you doing reading the internet? Go read this. It's Moore's career best - I'll die on that hill - and Jacen Burrows is knocking it way way way out of the park, as well. The last book feels a little meh, an effort to tie together the other Mythos Trilogy books, which are inferior in every way. It could have done without it. But it's finding a streak of white in a perfect chocolate mousse.
[2] Barring damage, upon which the brain does REALLY crazy things to fill in the gaps. GPT4, on its best days, reminds me of talking with patients that have had some hippocampal-adjacent cerebral damage. But the human brain - and body! - has far, FAR more tricks than a text-trained 'net . .
The phrase "invisible labyrinth" describes perfectly the relationship of the self inside the complexity of the human brain. When the body tries, in drips and drops, to save the organism, parts of the resource-hungry labyrinth are taken apart like a travelling circus, to put those hands to more important work. But the circus is our mind, its sense of self is rendered by this disassembly, and then it senses no more.
Sometimes, though, returning to full consciousness, the mind is forced to fill in those existential gaps. We experience an extremely tiny simulacra of this phenomenon upon waking from deep sleep. What's really remarkable is that people tend to fill in the gaps[2] in extraordinarily similar ways. This is powerful but informal evidence that the mechanisms of consciousness might be paradoxically quite simple, perhaps nothing more than a consistent framework for the internal simulation of environments. Layer enough sims, you get an emergent evolutionary impulse to maintain internal narrative.
I'm no scientist - not even particularly clever by HN standards - but figuring this particular widget out will be the bridge to AGI. Multimodal corpus are steps in this direction, but corpus needs to be responsive for this to work.
It would be humorous, but not at all surprising, if human AGI requires both simulated sex and death. No free lunches, I suppose - you want the behavior, you have to pay these weird taxes. I believe that was Oscar Isaac's rationale for giving Eve sex stuff in Ex Machina, although it was hard to believe anything he said given that everything about his character made my skin try to crawl off my body.
[1] Apologies to "In the Walls", Book 5 of Providence by Alan Moore. Do you like H.P. Lovecraft? Do you like comic books? What are you doing reading the internet? Go read this. It's Moore's career best - I'll die on that hill - and Jacen Burrows is knocking it way way way out of the park, as well. The last book feels a little meh, an effort to tie together the other Mythos Trilogy books, which are inferior in every way. It could have done without it. But it's finding a streak of white in a perfect chocolate mousse.
[2] Barring damage, upon which the brain does REALLY crazy things to fill in the gaps. GPT4, on its best days, reminds me of talking with patients that have had some hippocampal-adjacent cerebral damage. But the human brain - and body! - has far, FAR more tricks than a text-trained 'net . .
> you get an emergent evolutionary impulse to maintain internal narrative.
I suppose it's just an implementation detail that it works for near-death experiences?
I can't see it being "intentionally" evolved, first because a large (most?) number of NDEs actually make people less afraid of death (which evolution should technically be selecting against), and also because until modern medicine/resuscitation, the NDE behavior was very unlikely to change the evolutionary outcome of an individual since if they get into a stage when they're having an NDE, actual death would always follow, thus the evolutionary fate of the individual is already sealed.
I suppose it's just an implementation detail that it works for near-death experiences?
I can't see it being "intentionally" evolved, first because a large (most?) number of NDEs actually make people less afraid of death (which evolution should technically be selecting against), and also because until modern medicine/resuscitation, the NDE behavior was very unlikely to change the evolutionary outcome of an individual since if they get into a stage when they're having an NDE, actual death would always follow, thus the evolutionary fate of the individual is already sealed.
The internal narrative is important, but yeah, the NDE is just a side effect of trying to maintain that narrative when the stage falls to pieces around you.
We hold onto that narrative of self through some astonishing events. Instead of "oh, the visual cortex is dying, so it's trying to see through the other sensory systems, triggering memories", we have a white tunnel narrative[1], but in the white tunnel our persona remains intact. We don't need to start simulating the outcomes of having our simulation / sensory system fall apart - we can keep going, if we make it. Simulating the failure of your simulation capacity, that's a lot of complexity the organism doesn't need.
Again, just shooting my mouth off here. Some observations as science gadfly.
[1] Psychedelics introduce similar paths to having mystic narratives, and have been used as such for at least thousands of years. Probably longer than that, judging from their usage among even primitive mammals.
We hold onto that narrative of self through some astonishing events. Instead of "oh, the visual cortex is dying, so it's trying to see through the other sensory systems, triggering memories", we have a white tunnel narrative[1], but in the white tunnel our persona remains intact. We don't need to start simulating the outcomes of having our simulation / sensory system fall apart - we can keep going, if we make it. Simulating the failure of your simulation capacity, that's a lot of complexity the organism doesn't need.
Again, just shooting my mouth off here. Some observations as science gadfly.
[1] Psychedelics introduce similar paths to having mystic narratives, and have been used as such for at least thousands of years. Probably longer than that, judging from their usage among even primitive mammals.
I've always felt that to get AGI it needs to have some concept or fear of death ingrained in it just like humans do. It happens to every human always. It's been in our evolution. The fear and avoidance of death is a primal core of who we are and how we think.
[deleted]
What the result indicate is that a) they did not see the tablet screen in the “state of outer body” (why would they?) b) did not hear sounds through their physical ears
Whew, glad this dodged the "woo". I've seen similar reports like this, that fail to detect any parapsychological assertions. I often wonder if people who have these experiences have ever done hallucinogens. I have a feeling that if someone has previously experienced the flimsy nature of perceived reality, they wouldn't be so quick to ascribe near-death experiences to something supernatural.
There are many NDE experiences who have experience with psychedelics and discuss the comparison! As far as I've seen they are more or less unanimous is asserting a categorical difference, but I haven't seen done any systematic research or anything.
Considering that a popular hallucinogen today, DMT (with or without the ayahuasca ritual), commonly leaves users with the conviction that the drug really opened a portal to another dimension inhabited by godlike entities, and didn’t just scramble their synapses like e.g. LSD – I think that the experience you suggest wouldn’t necessary dissuade people from reaching for a supernatural explanation.
Ahh good point. I'm from a much older generation and the new drugs are outside my experience if they really provide that kind of vibe.
I agree - it always just sounds like a heavy psychedelic experience like 5-meo or high-doses of mushrooms etc.
But then again, part of the beauty of the psychedelic realization of the 'flimsy nature of perceived reality' is also realizing that our non-intoxicated / non-NDE mental state is also not necessarily 'true reality' either.
So IMO still plenty of room for ghosts in the machines :)
But then again, part of the beauty of the psychedelic realization of the 'flimsy nature of perceived reality' is also realizing that our non-intoxicated / non-NDE mental state is also not necessarily 'true reality' either.
So IMO still plenty of room for ghosts in the machines :)
I've had several NDEs and also worked with plan medicines (facilitating and dieting in the amazon) for close to 10 years.
In my experience there's a very different feeling between a perceived reality and an NDE vision (or similar visions that cut through the illusory nature of reality).
In my experience there's a very different feeling between a perceived reality and an NDE vision (or similar visions that cut through the illusory nature of reality).
I had three NDEs well. I found my NDEs to be more like dreams. Very relaxing dreams.
I agree with this take. For many, it seems like that their NDE was also their first psychedelic experience. So then the two is conflated.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> As patients underwent CPR, a tablet computer displayed one of ten visual images
> During 5 minutes of the CPR, patients also were repeatedly exposed through the headphone audio to the names of 3 fruits
I think this type of experiment could be harmful to patients.
Human brain consumes oxygen at varied rate. It consumes more oxygen under stress. Natural body reaction is to pass out, to preserve limited oxygen reserves in blood and tissue. Interfering or preventing person from loosing consciousness, will deplete oxygen supply faster, and may cause permanent brain damage sooner.
I have no evidence for this claim, just experience from yoga and diving.
> During 5 minutes of the CPR, patients also were repeatedly exposed through the headphone audio to the names of 3 fruits
I think this type of experiment could be harmful to patients.
Human brain consumes oxygen at varied rate. It consumes more oxygen under stress. Natural body reaction is to pass out, to preserve limited oxygen reserves in blood and tissue. Interfering or preventing person from loosing consciousness, will deplete oxygen supply faster, and may cause permanent brain damage sooner.
I have no evidence for this claim, just experience from yoga and diving.
It’s not enough to make a tangible difference. CPR isn’t close to ideal blood flow, and resuscitation generally fails. Movies paint a picture that it almost always succeeds, but it is closer to the opposite. Then, it’s possible to argue that whether the patient hears resuscitation being done to them or fruit names doesn’t matter much.
In the end, the depth of chest compressions in CPR in millimeters probably has a bigger effect on tissue death. But it’s very difficult to know what’s the ideal depth of a chest compression for each person in such a granular way, and it’s difficult for humans to do them so precisely. So it’s all rather imprecise.
The likelihood of a patient living goes from near 0% to perhaps 20% or 30% when they are resuscitated. But even that depends on very many things. No one can account for things like 1% or 0.1% tissue death in the process. The process is far too brute and imprecise.
This is my medschool exp although I didn’t go on to become a doctor or resuscitate anyone beyond simulations.
In the end, the depth of chest compressions in CPR in millimeters probably has a bigger effect on tissue death. But it’s very difficult to know what’s the ideal depth of a chest compression for each person in such a granular way, and it’s difficult for humans to do them so precisely. So it’s all rather imprecise.
The likelihood of a patient living goes from near 0% to perhaps 20% or 30% when they are resuscitated. But even that depends on very many things. No one can account for things like 1% or 0.1% tissue death in the process. The process is far too brute and imprecise.
This is my medschool exp although I didn’t go on to become a doctor or resuscitate anyone beyond simulations.
This sounds odd. I always thought, death is like being on vacation with some Germans.
Rosencrantz: Do you think Death could possibly be a boat?
Guildenstern: No, no, no... Death is "not." Death isn't. Take my meaning? Death is the ultimate negative. Not-being. You can't not be on a boat.
Rosencrantz: I've frequently not been on boats.
Guildenstern: No, no... What you've been is not on boats.
Guildenstern: No, no, no... Death is "not." Death isn't. Take my meaning? Death is the ultimate negative. Not-being. You can't not be on a boat.
Rosencrantz: I've frequently not been on boats.
Guildenstern: No, no... What you've been is not on boats.
That’s the warm feeling of acceptance.
[deleted]
The sample pool is relatively small for such a research.
At first I thought this is more about a study or glimpse into the other side but it's about "how dead is a person really?".
Awareness of death? No!, but maybe non-functional brain where the sensory data is no longer being processed.
At first I thought this is more about a study or glimpse into the other side but it's about "how dead is a person really?".
Awareness of death? No!, but maybe non-functional brain where the sensory data is no longer being processed.
[deleted]
During the time I was dead, I have a memory. It is a singular experience of non-existence. Everything was black, and warm, and comfortable. It was silent, and there was no pain or concern for anything that had been going on. I didn't even think about it. It was as though I were in the most effective sensory deprivation tank ever.
Then they shocked me, and it hurt like hell. I woke up, looked at the doctor, and he said, "you went away for a few there", and I said, "Oh, did I?".
A couple minutes later, they "lost" me, and I went back to the blackness, but for a much shorter period of time, and I was shocked almost immediately. I had the wherewithal, upon being shocked, to say, in a very annoyed voice, 'Ouch.' which apparently caused some people in the ER room to laugh.
I ended up crashing 6 times that day, and each time I underwent cardiac arrest, it was like slipping back asleep into the deepest dream.
I used to be afraid to die. Now, I'm not, but I'm afraid to leave behind the people that I love, because I want to spend time with them, and I don't want them to have to go through me leaving them again.
Update: Here's a link to my tweet when I first talked publicly about it - https://twitter.com/standaloneSA/status/1478436334347816960