A Near-Death Experience Question

[Anja]

Recently the Godmother of my daughter "died" on the operating table. Both her electrocardiogram and her electroencephalogram flat-lined. I don't know how long she was in this condition.

But they revived her and the nurses were curious about what she had experienced while she was "dead." They said occasionally they have this experience with a patient and ask them.

What she described was the usual story of the light, tunnel, beautiful music, an intense sense of well-being, friendly people greeting her and a reluctance to return.

They nodded, familiar with the tale.

Then, she said, she went on to describe which of the hospital staff was where in the room and what they were each doing. She said that she was watching them from the ceiling. And she asked where a particular cart that had been brought into the room during resuscitation was. This surprised them as it had been removed before she had regained consciousness. She also was able to repeat some of the conversation made while she was flat-lined.

I have very little familiarity with NDEs but it is my understanding that when your brain and heart are flat-lined you are, indeed, dead.

I've read some scientific explanations for the lights, music. It is suggested that this is the brain's swan song as it dies and the cells flicker out. That makes sense to me.

But this other thing - the numerous cases piling up and documented by hospital staff, scientific minds, of people being able to report what went on while they were clinically dead has me puzzled. How can that be explained scientifically?

Are there any here of those of you who have stated your belief that, once you are clinically dead you no longer exist, able to explain this phenomenom in a scientific manner?

Certainly not all of the multitude of documented cases can be hoaxes.

A further question would be that if you no longer exist, once clinically dead, how are they able to call "you" back to life? You no longer exist!

Anyone want to give a stab at helping me to understand your line of thinking regarding this?

 

[Didums]

She was still experiencing life as we understand it: processing our surroundings through the senses. When you truly "die" you no longer sense anything.

Death as I understand it is the "point of no return", simply put: She returned, so she was never actually dead in the first place.

 

[Anja]

Well, my question is, that a flat lined brain indicates that absolutely nothing is happening in the brain. So how then can one use their senses?

 

[Jack Flak]

Well, my question is, that a flat lined brain indicates that absolutely nothing is happening in the brain. So how then can one use their senses?

The heart was flatlined, the brain wasn't dead yet, or you wouldn't have had a conversation with her.

oh, wait, i didn't see that the EEG was flat. Oh well, I assume there's a rational explanation.

 

[Anja]

A brain dies, Jack, within seconds of flat-lining. This is what I'm curious about.

 

[Jack Flak]

A brain dies, Jack, within seconds of flat-lining. This is what I'm curious about.

Are you talking about the EEG showing no brain function, or the heart stopping?

 

[Anja]

If you'll refer to the original post you'll see that I said both were flat-lined.

But I don't care to discuss this one case.

I'm referring, as I said, to the numerous documented cases which one can google.

 

[Jack Flak]

Okay, here you go: EEG Alone Cannot Diagnose Brain Death -- Neurotransmitter.net

 

[Anja]

I just put it on my favorites and will read it when I've got more time.

I imagine I'll have questions.

 

[placebo]

I've found this topic interesting, but I haven't read up on it much in years. A lot of what you end up reading [Near-Death Experiences and the Afterlife] only tells you about the same typical OBE, tunnel like experience, and spiritual change stories, and a lot of it is associated with the paranormal and the concept of afterlife, etc. which you learn to take with a grain of salt.

Neuroscientists will probably eventually be able to explain OBEs and NDEs and whether or not there is any truth to the belief that consciousness survives death. So till then, here's a nice summary of possibilities from the skeptical side near-death experiences (NDEs) lol?

Moody, on the other hand, is sure that NDEs are evidence of consciousness existing separately from the brain. He thinks that NDEs prove the existence of life after death. Skeptics, on the other hand, believe that NDEs can be explained by neurochemistry and are the result of brain states that occur due to a dying, demented, extremely stressed, or drugged brain. For example, neural noise and retino-cortical mapping explain the common experience of passage down a tunnel from darkness into a bright light. According to Susan Blackmore, vision researcher Dr. Tomasz S. Troscianko of the University of Bristol speculated:

If you started with very little neural noise and it gradually increased, the effect would be of a light at the centre getting larger and larger and hence closer and closer....the tunnel would appear to move as the noise levels increased and the central light got larger and larger....If the whole cortex became so noisy that all the cells were firing fast, the whole area would appear light. (Blackmore 1993: 85)

Blackmore attributes the feelings of extreme peacefulness of the NDE to the release of endorphins in response to the extreme stress of the situation. The buzzing or ringing sound is attributed to cerebral anoxia and consequent effects upon the connections between brain cells (op. cit., 64).

 

[Nocapszy]

EEG measures neuron aggregations -- not specific activity.
The brain was still doing shit, but it wasn't anything the terminals placed on her head could pick up.

The memory of the sounds themselves could possibly have been made without being analyzed by your grandmother's consciousness. Then when she came back, she recalled the sounds.

Same way she'd be able to recall the wonderful music. Shit happened, just not in typical aggregated form: which means the inducted voltage wasn't enough for the electrodes on her head to detect.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Things like this thread are why atheism isn't really any more rational than spiritual belief. Scenarios are being offered under the de facto assumption that some kind of afterlife is impossible. "Well, this may be unlikely, or I can't think of anything right now, but I know it's not THAT." It's no different than the way religions bend over backwards to explain things in a way that incorporates their dogma.

 

[Anja]

Well, I've had time now for a scan of the info Jack offered and found it interesting.

Apparently the lack of sophistication of the instrument cannot measure exactly the amount of brain function which exists. I wonder if there are qualities of the brain which may not be measurable from a scientific standpoint. That idea itself raises interesting questions.

One article mentions certain "residual vegetative functions" which may be the reason for accurate perception of what is happening while the patient is, at this stage of ability to diagnose anyway, clinically dead.

I find it difficult to believe that a vegetative brain, or a well-functioning brain for that matter, is somehow able to discern objects in the room which are no longer there when the patient regains consciousness. There are a multitude of examples of this happening during NDEs and no one has been able, thus far, to explain it.

I can't believe that all of those examples have been faked because everyone in the emergency or operating room had a hidden agenda to push Christianity on to people.

Another, frightening, thought which occurs is the question of cremation or organ donation. If we are unable to determine when a human has stopped perceiving - Yikes!

And Yikes! to Nocapszy and Jack's reading comprehension skills, as well. Heh.

Dang. I just can't resist. . .

 

[Totenkindly]

...I find it difficult to believe that a vegetative brain, or a well-functioning brain for that matter, is somehow able to discern objects in the room which are no longer there when the patient regains consciousness.

What?
This is confusing me.

The question is whether the brain could perceive the item when it was in the room, right, while the person is out -- not where it is later? (So what does waking up later have to do with anything?)

I can't believe that all of those examples have been faked because everyone in the emergency or operating room had a hidden agenda to push Christianity on to people.

That would be silly.

The question is whether or not the phenomena being observed is better explained by some mystical "after death" experience or simply a residual effect of biology and biochemistry and neurology and whatever else that we have not yet discovered or understood properly.

And there's been a lot of precedent for thinking some things are mystical/magical and then science discovered a predictable and dependable explanation for them.

So we have to be cautious as we proceed ahead.

Another, frightening, thought which occurs is the question of cremation or organ donation. If we are unable to determine when a human has stopped perceiving - Yikes!

That's actually a serious concern and why people argue so much around "end of life" scenarios. We don't want to be harvest items from live people.

PS. Glad your friend made it through.

 

[Anja]

You're rephrasing what I said in a Tee manner, Jennifer. We've said the same thing from my perspective. What it has to do with the patient waking up is the significance, seemed obvious to me, that the patient self-reports observation of an item which it seems, couldn't have been observed in his comatose state.

Edit: And on your second point. Yes. That seems to be the question. Is what is happening measurable or is it "something else?"

 

[Totenkindly]

You're rephrasing what I said in a Tee manner, Jennifer. We've said the same thing from my perspective. What it has to do with the patient waking up is the significance, seemed obvious to me, that the patient self-reports observation of an item which it seems, couldn't have been observed in his comatose state.

No, it sounds like you're saying that the patient observed something while "out" that she couldn't have observed while being awake.

That's different from what I said. (I thought you meant something that the patient could have observed if awake.)

 

[The Third Rider]

I find this whole thing fascinating really. I was reading this and assuming is not a hoax than this is interesting:
People born blind can see during a near-death experience

 

[ptgatsby]

A further question would be that if you no longer exist, once clinically dead, how are they able to call "you" back to life? You no longer exist!

I think this has been mentioned before in regards to EEG, but what you say here has two interpretations: one, that something must exist outside the body and be recalled, so to speak... and two, that you weren't really gone in the can't recover sense.

I think evidence shows 2 to be the most likely - it is likely difficult to quantify the exact moment. Especially when I think about chickens without heads running around!

Anyone want to give a stab at helping me to understand your line of thinking regarding this?

My thinking starts with questioning the initial prompt - were they able to describe what happens? It seems that it happens, but it's actually very easy to imprint that kind of story/knowledge onto people. It can be entirely accidental (I'm thinking especially about the research into abused children, where blind trials are able to generate incredibly graphic and horrible stories from placebo/control children...) and viewed as incredibly accurate/consistent... yet still be fabricated. Heh, most memories are like that. I'm still trying to get over a fabricated memory on where someone lived (I completely remember them living somewhere other than where they did... <_< )

If it was true that this happened, the question would be about questioning where the information comes. I would work backwards in terms of probability - what constitutes revival, time of death, awareness and so forth. I'd look for cases where people were blind, for example, or otherwise unable to see. This would probably happen during step one - questioning the premise - because the evidence cuts both ways. Blind people could also suggest fabricated memories.

Since it can't be a controlled experiment, it would require a vast amount of evidence to support that something really far from the ordinary was happening - but if both sets of possibilities were eliminated, then the question would remain open-ended and unexplained. Assuming a set answer complete with implications happens when the reliability of the explanation is high, and without a way to test something directly, reliability will remain low. Sequential cases and more investigation/controls to gather the data would increase the reliability. In short, it would have to become way more controlled before it was up for serious inspection, and the more that it built up, the more control would be applied.

Certainly not all of the multitude of documented cases can be hoaxes.

Hoaxes isn't the right word, IMO. The problem isn't with people trying to trick others! It's that the reliability of what we know is very low. And systemic effects can cause large volumes of misleading data (to illustrate this, I used the abused children example - it had a profound impact on how children were questioned.)

 

[Anja]

No, it sounds like you're saying that the patient observed something while "out" that she couldn't have observed while being awake.

That's different from what I said. (I thought you meant something that the patient could have observed if awake.)

Just a matter of an awkward sentence. 'sokay.

*Mutters*
Nitpickin.' Sheesh. :steam:

 

[Anja]

Okay, I see what you're saying, pt. That makes sense to me.

Not looking for any conclusions on this one and appreciate any and all perspectives.