1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Afterlife Forums is an online, interactive community designed to give seekers direct access to prominent researchers, to afterlife literature, and to one another in order to foster both spiritual growth and public interest in life after death.

Sam Parnia update:No afterlife :(

Discussion in 'General Afterlife Discussions' started by Filip, Feb 15, 2014.

  1. Filip

    Filip New Member

    Here is a very interesting article
    i found on what happens when people die to their bodies!

    From it,the excerpt that follows is on the research conducted by Dr Sam Parnia:
    During the AHA meeting, Dr. Sam Parnia, head of intensive care at Stony Brook University Hospital in New York, reported early results of a 25-hospital study of how frequently cardiac arrest survivors see or hear things while their hearts are stopped. Of 152 survivors interviewed, 37 percent said they had recollections from the unconscious period. Only two recalled actually seeing events and one described any events that could be verified. None saw images mounted in the treatment room as part of the experiment.

    Still, there's evidence that dying brains can remain active. In August, researchers at the University of Michigan reported on brain studies of rats dying from induced cardiac arrest and suffocation. They found that within the first 30 seconds after death, all the rats displayed a surge of brain activity. The rodents' brains showed consciousness that exceeded levels normally found in the animals when they're awake.


    Therefore,no hits for Sam Parnia! I think we should really worry now about the validity of NDEs... :(
     
  2. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    NDEs are simply that - experiences of individuals who appeared near to death. They neither validate nor negate the concept of life-after-death, the survival of our corporeal death.

    They've caught the public imagination recently and may be a useful step for some to investigate the notion of survival but they may also become the sole focus for others.

    Kinda like some folk seek out the fun and fantasy surrounding the sometimes spectacular phenomena produced during physical mediumship - witnessing phenomena may become more important than the message behind the mediumship being demonstrated.

    NDEs don't provide evidence of survival and neither do physical phenomena.
     
  3. janef

    janef Moderator

    The AWARE study (AWAreness during REsuscitation) is a multi-hospital clinical study of the brain and consciousness during cardiac arrest, including tests of the validity of perceptions during the out-of-body portion of near-death experiences. The latest status is that more data and larger scale studies will probably be required, and an end to the study is not anticipated in the near future. A report of preliminary results from the first five years of the study is likely this fall, to be presented through a scientific journal or a scientific conference.

    "In the meantime, Dr. Sam Parnia, Director of the AWARE study, has written a new book, Erasing Death: The science that is rewriting the boundaries between life and death, to be released in February. The book reveals that death is not a moment in time, but rather a process that can be interrupted well after it has begun. Dr. Parnia reveals how some form of "afterlife" may be uniquely ours, as evidenced by the continuation of the human mind and psyche after the brain stops functioning."
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2014
  4. vic smyth

    vic smyth New Member

    If I wasn't so lazy I would type up or scan and post the conclusion to Frazer's lecture on afterlife beliefs of primitive tribes delivered at a university in England around 1910. Something to the effect of, "Ours is the only culture in the history of mankind that questions whether an afterlife exists. To all other primitive cultures studied it's a fact that is plain as day."

    With Lovingkindness (metta),
    vic
     
  5. ravensgate

    ravensgate Active Member

    Another “fine” example of modern reporting, lol. Thanks, Filip. I read the entire article, then I read it again, and it sounded so familiar. Then it hit me why it sounded so familiar. You see, back in November of 2013, I attended a symposium in Dallas, at the Omni hotel, in their ballroom.
    On Wednesday, Nov. 20, I came back home with several papers from the symposium, including the abstract pertaining to Dr. Parnia’ s research update (presentation # 236, session IX). Based on your link, I think the reporter was referring to this very event. Unfortunately the article you provide us with omits to include the conclusion, which reads: “Auditory and/or visual experiences during unconsciousness may be a relatively common phenomenon. Even though these experiences may not reflect the conventionally defined NDE and may be different, they may indicate that consciousness may not cease as expected with cessation of heartbeat during CA” (bold lettering is mine).

    Today, in medicine we still view cessation of heart rhythm and cessation of respiration as clinical death; perhaps we need to revise our definition (I think Dr. Parnia agrees on this). In fairly recent interviews, Dr. Parnia kind of stuck his neck out by stating that “some form of afterlife may be uniquely ours, as evidenced by the continuation of the human mind and psyche after the brain stops functioning”.

    In addition, you may find this interesting also; it is an article pertaining to the argument that NDE experiences are hallucinations. It was published by PLOS, a peer-reviewed journal, and refers to a study conducted in Belgium. It’s a rather long article, but the summary reads,
    In conclusion, the present study shows that NDE memories have more characteristics than any kind of memory of real or imagined events and of other memories of a period of coma or impaired consciousness following an acquired severe brain dysfunction. In our opinion, the presented data demonstrate that NDEs cannot be considered as imagined events.

    As I may have mentioned in the past, this type of argument could go on ad nauseam. If you believe the “evidence” you’ve gathered refutes the survival of consciousness, go with 
     
  6. ravensgate

    ravensgate Active Member

    Ok, forget the bold lettering :D
     
  7. ravensgate

    ravensgate Active Member

    Another “fine” example of modern reporting, lol. Thanks, Filip. I read the entire article, then I read it again, and it sounded so familiar. Then it hit me why it sounded so familiar. You see, back in November of 2013, I attended a symposium in Dallas, at the Omni hotel, in their ballroom.
    On Wednesday, Nov. 20, I came back home with several papers from the symposium, including the abstract pertaining to Dr. Parnia’ s research update (presentation # 236, session IX). Based on your link, I think the reporter was referring to this very event. Unfortunately the article you provide us with omits to include the conclusion, which reads: “Auditory and/or visual experiences during unconsciousness may be a relatively common phenomenon. Even though these experiences may not reflect the conventionally defined NDE and may be different, they may indicate that consciousness may not cease as expected with cessation of heartbeat during CA” (bold lettering is mine).

    Today, in medicine we still view cessation of heart rhythm and cessation of respiration as clinical death; perhaps we need to revise our definition (I think Dr. Parnia agrees on this). In fairly recent interviews, Dr. Parnia kind of stuck his neck out by stating that “some form of afterlife may be uniquely ours, as evidenced by the continuation of the human mind and psyche after the brain stops functioning”.

    In addition, you may find this interesting also; it is an article pertaining to the argument that NDE experiences are hallucinations. It was published by PLOS, a peer-reviewed journal, and refers to a study conducted in Belgium. It’s a rather long article, but the summary reads,
    In conclusion, the present study shows that NDE memories have more characteristics than any kind of memory of real or imagined events and of other memories of a period of coma or impaired consciousness following an acquired severe brain dysfunction. In our opinion, the presented data demonstrate that NDEs cannot be considered as imagined events.

    As I may have mentioned in the past, this type of argument could go on ad nauseam. If you believe the “evidence” you’ve gathered refutes the survival of consciousness, go with it.
     
  8. ravensgate

    ravensgate Active Member

    Why did it post twice? Sorry, double post!
     
  9. Celera

    Celera Active Member

    Yup, we should definitely worry. Move along, nothing to see here.
     
  10. Filip

    Filip New Member

    Ravensgate,this article? Which article?? You mean a research by Dr Pim vam Lommel maybe? You forgot the link ;)

    Celera and Mac,NDEs are widely used as a strong evidence for the afterlife! However,this 5-year research conducted by Sam Parnia(who is a believer by the way...)
    is strong evidence that NDEs and OBEs are mere hallucinations,even though he doesn't admit it openly...
    Where is your evidence to show the opposite?
     
  11. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    I'm not here to provide you with evidence or promote the opposite.... You don't accept that survival is the case? That's OK by me!
     
  12. bluebird

    bluebird Well-Known Member

    I wouldn't accept one person's opinion, or the conclusion(s) of one study, as proof for or as proof against the afterlife. To me, it doesn't make any sense to do so.

    Honestly, for me, the only way I will know if there's an afterlife is if I get personal proof -- my husband visiting me, or similar. But if you are of a mindset that will let you form an opinion on the matter based on studies, then you really ought to read about the results/findings of a LOT of reputable studies, the opinions of various people from different faiths and outlooks and cultures, etc., before making a determination. Basing your opinion on the findings of one person or study is your right, of course, but I don't see why you would give one person/study so much influence over your beliefs, especially in such an important area and when it's so easy for any one person/study to be influenced by personal bias.
     
  13. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    Just to remind you what I wrote:

    NDEs are simply that - experiences of individuals who appeared near to death. They neither validate nor negate the concept of life-after-death, the survival of our corporeal death.

    They've caught the public imagination recently and may be a useful step for some to investigate the notion of survival but they ma.................

    NDEs don't provide evidence of survival and neither do physical phenomena.
     
  14. Filip, just out of curiousity, have you ever had an obe or nde? Most of the people who insist that nde's or obe's are hallucinations have never had one. It is such a personal experience that no one can tell you what it is. It is so profound that it makes you question reality in the deepest sense. And hallucinations do not do that.
     
  15. frith

    frith Member

    Studying a completely random phenomenon and trying to prove is scientifically is going to be extremely difficult. So I wouldn't discount everything from just this one study.

    Think of physicists studying rare atomic particles using incredibly expensive atom smashers and how rare or non-existent their findings are. Then add on contemporary scientific skeptical dogmatic ideology and a lack of any funding or research in this area and you have where we are now in proving or disproving NDEs.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2014
  16. janef

    janef Moderator

    There is plenty of evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there is an Afterlife. Some people will never believe it unless they experience it for themselves. There also are people that don't believe we have ever stepped on the moon. Fine. But, I am confused why some of you are here on this forum started by Roberta Grimes to discuss the Afterlife, which most here have accepted as the truth. Why don't you move on to a skeptic site?
     
  17. bluebird

    bluebird Well-Known Member

    Speaking for myself -- desperation. Because my husband died, I desperately want proof of the afterlife, proof that he is safe and well and waiting for me in it. I don't need a skeptic site because I am already full of doubt, I don't need more.

    Also, there's nothing wrong with being skeptical; that just means that one is open-minded as to the possibilities, both for and against. Discussing the possibility of the afterlife doesn't necessarily mean that one must believe in its existence. I can discuss Greek and Roman mythology, although I don't believe in their gods. I can discuss the Hollow Earth theory, although I don't believe it has any validity. I can discuss the possibility of god's existence, though I am agnostic on that subject.

    I want there to be an afterlife, but I do not share your view that the existence of one has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. To you, there is no doubt. To me, there is significant doubt.
     
  18. Celera

    Celera Active Member

    I think it's good to engage in conversations with people who hold different views, although it's best done with a mind at least partly open. Hearing the skeptic's arguments and considering why one rejects it is a useful exercise for both writer and reader.

    Filip's specific approach seems to be to throw a link on the board and challenge us to refute it. The links he has chosen have been so transparently illogical that I have only been persuaded to think less of the notable skeptics. I'm not hearing much about his own ideas or experiences, or even his own reasons for finding the skeptical view tenable.

    Others are here presenting their own doubts and fears along with their hopes and a measure of general goodwill. Personally, I welcome such doubters. Some days, I am one of them. But Tossing a link on the board and saying, well, I guess that's it then, is intellectually lazy and appears like an attempt to start a quarrel. It doesn't seem to be working and I expect he'll get bored with it eventually.

    Just my opinion.
     
  19. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    On some websites, in some forums, the only thing that some contributors do is to post links - no comment, no opinion, no ideas....

    It's a lazy-ass way as I see things.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2014
  20. janef

    janef Moderator

    I hope you will find reassurance bluebird.... I think you are an open-minded person, my message was not intended for you.
     
  21. ravensgate

    ravensgate Active Member

    My opinion here, and I may be totally wrong. I do believe Filip is a skeptic who throws the bone our way, sits back and watches. He grabs whatever flimsy arguments he finds against the afterlife and presents them to us as strong evidence refuting the afterlife.

    Thank you, Mac; what you wrote in your post above is basically how I ended my previous one, that if Filip believes he has evidence that negates the possibility of an afterlife, so be it. Makes not one iota of difference to me.

    Filip, want the link? Look up PLOS; the study and article pertaining to it is there. Do some work and research for yourself if you truly are interested. Quit the games, will you? Why was the last, perhaps most important part of Parnia’s presentation missing from the piece you posted? You know, the part that reads “consciousness may not cease as expected with cessation of heartbeat during CA”. Explain, please. I believe it's because it is missing from the article you read and posted here (the link). If you had done the research and looked up the entire transcript, you would have noticed that little inconvenience, don't you think? Btw, Dr. Parnia is not a “believer” (as you stated), though he believes he has enough material that strongly points to the survival of consciousness.

    I see Filip as whylifeispointless all over again. Started slowly, but eventually grew! :D
     
  22. bluebird

    bluebird Well-Known Member

    Thanks, janef. And I apologize if I came across too strong, it's just that this issue is of primary importance to me and so I tend to react quite strongly.
     
  23. Matty Mo

    Matty Mo New Member

    DoubleFacePalm.jpg
    Alright, Filip, I'll bite against my better judgement. You cite one source and make a determination based on "part" of that source that all OBE/NDEs must now be hallucinations because the results were inconclusive? Then you have the gumption to ask others on the board to provide counter evidence as to indicate that otherwise it would nullify these experiences as hallucinations? Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to provide a lengthy reply this evening but I do promise to follow up tomorrow with some additional insight given how interested in the NDE phenomenon that I am. As much as I enjoy reading/studying up on NDEs I myself wouldn't say they should be considered "evidence" of an afterlife. However, to say that they are mere hallucinations is ridiculous to me. I'll respond more tomorrow...
     
  24. janef

    janef Moderator

    No problem bluebird.. I think it does take a personal experience to truly believe it. I wish that for you.. just keep an open mind and positive thoughts for him to give you a sign. Ask for something specific so you will know it is him.
     
  25. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Oy. I'm sorry to be blunt here, dear wonderful friends, but repeatedly reading this thread on top of all the other debunker foolishness that I have dutifully given mind-space to over the past thirty-odd years has begun to give me a headache. There is no discussion to be had here. This Sam Parnia is just one more in a very long list of dishonest debunkers whose Luddite materialist world-view is so profoundly threatened by even the possibility that the universe may not be entirely clockwork that he expends energy trying to delude honest seekers like our friend Filip. That is all he is.

    I am as skeptical as it is possible to be. I want proof. So I have spent nearly four decades gathering as much information as I possibly could that even bears on the question of what death is and what reality is. I couldn't have said what I am about to say here even ten years ago, in point of fact. It has taken me a lifetime to be certain. But now I am certain. What is more, I am confident that any open-minded seeker who impartially examined all the available evidence would reach precisely my conclusion. And here it is. Human consciousness is eternal. Death is impossible. And the apparently solid universe in which we think we reside is not where we reside - it is essentially an illusion. It's a great illusion - I'll give you that. But the people who have invested their careers in the illusion are having a very hard time giving it up, even in the face of all the evidence that is now right in their faces. They are like the doctors still bleeding people to balance their humors when the germ theory of medicine was well underway; they are like the Catholic Church, stubbornly fighting the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. And like these other deluded "experts," they are on the losing side of history because their minds are closed and they are afraid. There is no need to fear anything, dear wonderful friends - you are eternally safe, and nothing can ever harm you!

    A few eminent quantum physicists agree with me:

    Max Planck - "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness."

    Euan Squires - "Every interpretation of quantum mechanics involves consciousness."

    Albert Einstein - "The field is the sole governor of the particle." and "Our experience of separation may be an illusion of consciousness."

    Sir James Jeans - "The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine."

    I won't close this thread unless you ask that I do so. But there is no need to continue to discuss what is really just more debunker nonsense!
     
  26. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    P.S. - Indeed, NDEs ARE hallucinatons, dear Filip. But so is everything else ;-). Everything, that is, except for your mind, so please try harder to protect it from the influence of liars and fools.
     
  27. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    As filip hasn't returned to respond it seems that this discussion is effectively over for him....
     
  28. Matty Mo

    Matty Mo New Member

    I mentioned, the other evening I posted, coming back to add some additional comments regarding this. However, I think I'll pass as to let this thread slowly cease. Filip, if you're reading this and you want to PM me, I'd be happy to speak with you further.
     
  29. bluebird

    bluebird Well-Known Member

    A bit off-topic, but in response to a small part of Roberta's post: we CAN be harmed; i HAVE been harmed. Seriously, lastingly harmed. And i am by no means the only one.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2014
  30. ravensgate

    ravensgate Active Member

    Oh, I don't know, he may return with more "proof", lol.

    Tonight I’m here on this forum to ask if anyone has read about Dr. M. Beauregard’s patient who, at the age of 30 or thereabout, underwent a surgical procedure very similar to Pam Reynolds’ (hypothermic cardio-circulatory arrest). Dr. Beauregard and associates recorded veridical perception in this female patient who, I should add, delivered a baby via C-section prior to undergoing surgery for a dissecting aneurysm of her ascending aorta. This is what Beauregard and co-researchers wrote:

    "J.S. did not see or talk to the members of the surgical team, and it was not possible for her to see the machines behind the head section of the operating table, as she was wheeled into the operating room. J.S. was given general anesthesia and her eyes were taped shut.
    J.S. claims to have had an out-of-body experience (OBE). From a vantage point outside her physical body, she apparently ‘saw’ a nurse passing surgical instruments to the cardiothoracic surgeon. She also perceived anesthesia and echography machines located behind her head. We were able to verify that the descriptions she provided of the nurse and the machines were accurate (this was confirmed by the cardiothoracic surgeon who operated upon her)”.
    How could she have described the nurse and the machines located behind her head while she was “out” and her eyes taped shut?

    http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572(11)00575-2/fulltext


    Another case where the patient was able to see the sticky notes attached to the monitors in the OR is recounted by the late cardiovascular surgeon Dr. L. Rudy (this is much shorter than the full Dr. Beauregard’s article!):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tI887WgKPE
     

Share This Page