Review: Erasing Death

[SteyrAUG]

And I'm trying to tell you there is, and the book is not just 200+ pages of hypothesis and rambling but the actual science as it exists, some of which is very compelling. Two, huge strides in neuro science is being made, and I'd expect some real "wow" moments to occur regarding the human brain, human consciousness, etc within our life time.

I'm sure there is a ton of data. But I'm probably talking more "big picture" than you are. I'm talking about what happens when the brain has been OFF for 24 hours or more, not when we've simply passed the "near death" and "actual clinical death" qualifiers which are measured in minutes. I hope I'm not coming off as too dismissive, I think I'm just looking for a "bigger question" answer and they are finding answers to "smaller questions."

[WillBrink]

I'm sure there is a ton of data. But I'm probably talking more "big picture" than you are. I'm talking about what happens when the brain has been OFF for 24 hours or more, not when we've simply passed the "near death" and "actual clinical death" qualifiers which are measured in minutes. I hope I'm not coming off as too dismissive, I think I'm just looking for a "bigger question" answer and they are finding answers to "smaller questions."

I can't think of too many Qs for human beings that are larger than the possibility consciousness after clinical death. I don't think you're grasping the size and scope here of the topics he's attempting to address. They don't get any larger, such as the very nature of consciousness, does it exist after death or is it simply illusions of dying brains, etc, etc. Two, his medical specialty is exactly that: bringing people back from actual death experiences (ADE's) where they have been dead for a prolonged time. The fact is, there's no longer a sharp demarcation between being dead and alive (a topic covered at length BTW), and he explores that reality also. Due to big advances in the science, people are dead, fully dead, as in zero brain activity, zero heart function, etc (which by all measures is dead*) for a longer and longer time (hours in some cases), and brought back. Depending on a few key things, 24 hours is not that far off I'd guess. Would 4, 6, or 12 suffice?

If there's a bigger picture issue than that, I'm not aware of it. Life after death, God(s) and life on other planets, are pretty much my top three

* = That's not "near death" that's dead. Hence why he's termed it ADE not NDE, which he thinks is now the appropriate term for it.

[Pi3]

Fascinating. Here is an interview.
http://www.npr.org/2013/02/21/172495...-erasing-death

[SteyrAUG]

I can't think of too many Qs for human beings that are larger than the possibility consciousness after clinical death. I don't think you're grasping the size and scope here of the topics he's attempting to address. They don't get any larger, such as the very nature of consciousness, does it exist after death or is it simply illusions of dying brains, etc, etc. Two, his medical specialty is exactly that: bringing people back from actual death experiences (ADE's) where they have been dead for a prolonged time. The fact is, there's no longer a sharp demarcation between being dead and alive (a topic covered at length BTW), and he explores that reality also. Due to big advances in the science, people are dead, fully dead, as in zero brain activity, zero heart function, etc (which by all measures is dead*) for a longer and longer time (hours in some cases), and brought back. Depending on a few key things, 24 hours is not that far off I'd guess. Would 4, 6, or 12 suffice?

If there's a bigger picture issue than that, I'm not aware of it. Life after death, God(s) and life on other planets, are pretty much my top three

* = That's not "near death" that's dead. Hence why he's termed it ADE not NDE, which he thinks is now the appropriate term for it.

I tend to believe consciousness is a product of a self aware brain and as a result "to me" this is a question of how long the brain can retain information after ceasing to function. If I am right then there is a huge difference between 12 and 24 hours.

If however the brain is simply a conduit for consciousness as you believe, then we should be able to jump start things a week later and be fine. After all the brain is not producing consciousness so it only needs to function correctly to work as a conduit.

[WillBrink]

I tend to believe consciousness is a product of a self aware brain and as a result "to me" this is a question of how long the brain can retain information after ceasing to function. If I am right then there is a huge difference between 12 and 24 hours.

If the brain cells and other cells can be maintained, then there's no physiological reason there's going to be any difference between 12 or 24 hours. The brain is especially sensitive to low oxygen (hypoxia) and damage happens quickly. Modern tech (which many hospitals don't have BTW that Dr. Parnia goes into great detail over) allows for less damage done to the brain allows for extended times dead and resuscitation. It's not uncommon for the person to be brought back to life, but brain damage has occurred. The amount of brain damage will vary. But if the brain (especially) and other cells can be maintained (and that tech is improving by huge margins) then it's literally like re booting a computer. Read the book...

If however the brain is simply a conduit for consciousness as you believe, then we should be able to jump start things a week later and be fine. After all the brain is not producing consciousness so it only needs to function correctly to work as a conduit.

I did not state that's my belief. I was simply outlining the two major lines of thought on human consciousness which Parnia discusses at length. Which is correct, is the focus of future research the evidence for the possibility of the latter, a very interesting topic, at least in my view.

[WillBrink]

Fascinating. Here is an interview.
http://www.npr.org/2013/02/21/172495...-erasing-death

Yes, one of several interviews I have heard of his on NPR. I purchased his first book after hearing an interview on NPR.

[ScottsBad]

And I'm trying to tell you there is, and the book is not just 200+ pages of hypothesis and rambling but the actual science as it exists, some of which is very compelling. Two, huge strides in neuro science is being made, and I'd expect some real "wow" moments to occur regarding the human brain, human consciousness, etc within our life time.

I was a person who only took the strict and rather ridged view of the mind/consciousness for most of my life preferring the comparatively simple and easy notion that there is nothing after the body dies. However, many things that have happened over my lifetime have persuaded me that there is LIKELY more to this question than "science" is able to understand. I always gravitated toward scientific thinking and pride myself of being brutally logical, but I'm also highly intuitive. To me the reluctance to consider the experiences of people, including people who have reported seeing the confirmed activities of others in other rooms while dead or near dead, is incomprehensible and driven by pure ego on the part of the "scientific" community.

I've not read the book you speak of, however I do know of Sam Parnia's work. Most scientists and doctors won't touch subjects like this because they are afraid. But other areas of science are pointing to possibilities that break conventional thinking.

There are many things that are not well understood in the world of Quantum Mechanics that point to a much richer and more complex Universe than we ever thought. Such anomalies as Spooky Coherence (http://www.academia.edu/6619328/Spoo...mic_Absorption) that will continue to lead to possibilities that we simply could not have imagined a few years ago.

There has been some speculation that all time and data exist in the universe at once and that the dimension we live in only allows us to see things in a linear fashion. If that is the case then almost anything is possible. The established science journals tend to be dry as compared to the theoretical brainstorming going on behind closed doors.

....If however the brain is simply a conduit for consciousness as you believe, then we should be able to jump start things a week later and be fine. After all the brain is not producing consciousness so it only needs to function correctly to work as a conduit.

You were doing fine until this statement which is illogical.

[SteyrAUG]

I did not state that's my belief. I was simply outlining the two major lines of thought on human consciousness which Parnia discusses at length. Which is correct, is the focus of future research the evidence for the possibility of the latter, a very interesting topic, at least in my view.

My apologies. I somehow got the impression that you subscribed to the later view. Perhaps because the book seems to champion that view I assumed you did as well.

[SteyrAUG]

You were doing fine until this statement which is illogical.

How so? Perhaps I poorly worded my ideas. What is specifically illogical about what I wrote?

[WillBrink]

My apologies. I somehow got the impression that you subscribed to the later view. Perhaps because the book seems to champion that view I assumed you did as well.

The book does not champion that idea. It does explore the idea in depth and presents the information that exists for both lines of thought. What's clear is, consciousness being simply the collection of cells working together is far from well established.