Announcement

Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

Sam Parnia tells about AWARE initial results: a new interview

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I didn't read the book yet but it seems to me it just was a very smart defibrillator

    Comment


    • Originally posted by fls
      That's interesting. If something doesn't make sense, then I am less certain that the details we have been given are accurate and less certain that it might be true. But to you, it suggests the opposite.

      Anyway, I hope Parnia publishes the case in a medical journal. Then it is likely the odd setup will be explained, specific details will be given so that the veridical nature can be judged, and it will reach the audience it needs to reach.

      Linda
      No, I'm not making any assumptions about what actually occurred. I was simply asking in advance of the analysis, that if what you said in your second paragraph actually occurred (the odd setup explained, etc.) if you would then agree that it was good evidence for a veridical perception.

      Cheers,
      Bill

      Comment


      • Originally posted by fls
        I don't think it would make any difference.
        What do you mean? Make any difference to what?

        Cheers,
        Bill

        Comment


        • Originally posted by fls
          To whether it was a veridical perception (that was what you asked, wasn't it?).
          Why wouldn't an accurate description of an unusual occurrence (hearing the artificial voice of the AEP tell them to shock him, twice, while in cardiac arrest) be evidence that a veridical perception occurred? They do say in the book why they think it unusual:

          "There have been many scientific studies that have examined what happens to the brain immediately after the heart goes into VF and stops. These studies have all demonstrated that brain electrical activity stops and the brain itself flatlines."

          And that was confirmed to be the state of the patient in question at the time the device was being used.

          Cheers,
          Bill

          Comment


          • This is a detail overview of the case from his book

            The man Parnia interviews is named Mr.A, Mr.A had a OBE in 2011 and Parnia tracks him down in 2012 for more details and see's if he can verify his recollections with the patients medical records. He had a mild heart attack one day that was slow on his system. Eventually an ambluence comes to pick him up and by this time he seems semiconcious and really tired. A nurse boards the ambluence named Sarah who tries to keep him awake. they bring him to the hosiptal and they take him to the catheterization laboratory and this point the nurse put a sterile drape over him and he was lying flat on his back. They had place the drape as a form partition approxtimately level on his upper body so he couldn't see the nurses working around his groin infront of him, they were going to inject something in his groin to get his heart working, well the numb him up and inject him and all of a sudden he has a cardiac arrest (VF pattern) on the table and immedialty loses conciousness. The team of nurses install an automated external defibrillator He next recalls hearing a electronic voice say "shock the patient" "shock the patient", and then he sees a women ( a spiritual being, she has "curly hair", he felt like she cared for him and was there for a reason etc) in the far upper corner of the room ( not being blocked by the drape), and she becker to him and he thinks I can't get up there and then he zooms to that position next to her. He is able to see the backs of two people standing a the foot of his bed from a birds eye point of view. It is the nurse Sarah, and a man that he did not hear or see enter the room. He is able to describe visually both in detail, and he verifies the man's appearence himself when the man comes to visit him in his ward. The OBE was short and he soons wakes up in his bed. Parnia goes back and checks his medical records and finds out that he did have an arrest on site and the AED did shock him 2 times (No chest compressions were listed in his medical report). Parnia states the cardiac arrest was atleast 3-5 minutes because the AED takes 2-3 minutes before each shock, it takes some time for it to anaylsis the heart pattern and deliver the shock. So the fact that he heard it both times ( the machine), when minutes after his heart stopped is medically inexplicable, another thing that is paranormal is the fact that he was able to accurately describe a man who he had never seen or heard before his OBE that was out of his normal line of sight. Mr.A also describes something other things about the man that Parnia later verified with staff members. It is very impressive and just adds to the other strong cases,

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Buggy713 View Post
              This is a detail overview of the case from his book

              The man Parnia interviews is named Mr.A, Mr.A had a OBE in 2011 and Parnia tracks him down in 2012 for more details and see's if he can verify his recollections with the patients medical records. He had a mild heart attack one day that was slow on his system. Eventually an ambluence comes to pick him up and by this time he seems semiconcious and really tired. A nurse boards the ambluence named Sarah who tries to keep him awake. they bring him to the hosiptal and they take him to the catheterization laboratory and this point the nurse put a sterile drape over him and he was lying flat on his back. They had place the drape as a form partition approxtimately level on his upper body so he couldn't see the nurses working around his groin infront of him, they were going to inject something in his groin to get his heart working, well the numb him up and inject him and all of a sudden he has a cardiac arrest (VF pattern) on the table and immedialty loses conciousness. The team of nurses install an automated external defibrillator He next recalls hearing a electronic voice say "shock the patient" "shock the patient", and then he sees a women ( a spiritual being, she has "curly hair", he felt like she cared for him and was there for a reason etc) in the far upper corner of the room ( not being blocked by the drape), and she becker to him and he thinks I can't get up there and then he zooms to that position next to her. He is able to see the backs of two people standing a the foot of his bed from a birds eye point of view. It is the nurse Sarah, and a man that he did not hear or see enter the room. He is able to describe visually both in detail, and he verifies the man's appearence himself when the man comes to visit him in his ward. The OBE was short and he soons wakes up in his bed. Parnia goes back and checks his medical records and finds out that he did have an arrest on site and the AED did shock him 2 times (No chest compressions were listed in his medical report). Parnia states the cardiac arrest was atleast 3-5 minutes because the AED takes 2-3 minutes before each shock, it takes some time for it to anaylsis the heart pattern and deliver the shock. So the fact that he heard it both times ( the machine), when minutes after his heart stopped is medically inexplicable, another thing that is paranormal is the fact that he was able to accurately describe a man who he had never seen or heard before his OBE that was out of his normal line of sight. Mr.A also describes something other things about the man that Parnia later verified with staff members. It is very impressive and just adds to the other strong cases,
              Nice summary. Some people of course, will say it makes "no difference." Yet continue to comment profusely, and always make they have the last word, when the evidence is such that there is more room for "normal" explanations (e.g. Pam encountered descriptions of bone saws prior to her NDE).

              Cheers,
              Bill

              Comment


              • Originally posted by fls
                So the first documented description of the OBE comes a year after its occurrence and after he has seen, heard, and talked to both of the people he 'saw' in the OBE? And the staff can be presumed to be so incompetent that they let a patient lie there without CPR while the machine went through its charging cycle?

                Linda
                "I don't think it would make any difference. It's not like anyone thinks the guy went out and studied up on what typically happens, and then came back with a made up story"

                This is what you just said in the previous post.


                Well Parnia did not mention any chest compressions and his medical report (based on Parnia's book) did not specifically say. Maybe they did I am not in the medical field, maybe they don't list chest compressions. But Parnia in the beginning of the book goes into detail about how crappy blood flow is not going to cut it, even with the best CPR, it can give you at best 30% and thats with the only the best nurses and they cannot do it repeatedly. And the guys heart was flatlined with a VF, he should not have experienced anything. But you should know that Parnia wasn't able to grab about 94% of the survivors, had to do with the medical staff and there time schedules

                Comment


                • Am I wrong, or another round of "it-was-too-long-time-ago-i-was-not-there-but-i-know-it-all-better" game is being started now???

                  Sorry...sometimes I lack safe-control

                  Thank you Buggy713 for reposting the case description! As I said:

                  Originally posted by MitiL View Post
                  It seems to me it just was a very smart defibrillator
                  Last edited by MitiL; March 11th, 2013, 07:52 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by fls
                    Well, yes, but that is completely unrelated to the questions I asked.
                    Not surprising, as many of us have a hard time understanding what you are saying.

                    Cheers,
                    Bill

                    Comment


                    • I'm curious how they identified his rhythm as VF. I mean, if they were capable of interpreting the rhythm manually, it's odd that they then hooked up an AED instead of just defibrillating him. Did they not have a regular defibrillator available? Why not? How do they cardiovert patients without one? I don't know of any AEDs that have that ability. And in a cath lab that might prove to be a problem.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by courchesne View Post
                        I'm curious how they identified his rhythm as VF. I mean, if they were capable of interpreting the rhythm manually, it's odd that they then hooked up an AED instead of just defibrillating him. Did they not have a regular defibrillator available? Why not? How do they cardiovert patients without one? I don't know of any AEDs that have that ability. And in a cath lab that might prove to be a problem.

                        Parnia pointed out multiple times in the book how standard resuscitation care varies a lot out there (even amongst hospitals within this study) with some of it being of less-than-desirable quality.

                        I know that doesn't answer any of your questions, but it does suggest things may not go down everywhere as one might expect.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by fls
                          Well, yes, but that is completely unrelated to the questions I asked.



                          Ah, so we are going with gross incompetence, then.



                          Then he is misrepresenting the data, since that contradicts what he wrote in this scholarly article published in a medical journal, where CPR was sometimes associated with much better than 30% perfusion.

                          Elsevier



                          Yes, that is very disappointing.

                          Linda
                          Why is it unrelated to the question that I asked? You either believe that he is lying or not


                          I don't think you can just say outright that its gross incompetence. I mean, you don't have all the facts and you weren't there when the event went down. There could have been a multitude of reasons why they didn't use CP or put it in the report. But also, who saying gross incompetence? Do you have any expertise in this domain, do you work in a hospital... and if you do, I mean not to belittle you are anything but.. anyone can say anything on the net...


                          I think that you are misreading that paper that you quoted. Nowhere in the paper to my knowledge does it state that CPR can increase rSO2 levels better than 30%. What I mean is that if you have 20% you can get 50% max with CPR




                          Yeh actually it is very disappointing, and by the way Parnia says in the book that the way hopistals approach cardiac patients varys widely throughout the world and even in the United States. So we can't except staff members at each hostipal to do the same thing, thats what Parnia wants to fix
                          Last edited by Buggy713; March 11th, 2013, 09:41 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by KeithA View Post
                            That's been said before! But no - I'm not him.
                            Yes I asked you before if you were him!

                            Comment


                            • The misuse of the word “supernatural” by psi skeptics is rather irritating – no psi proponents or psi agnostics talk about anything “supernatural”, but only of natural phenomena which are not yet explained. Anomalous phenomena is regularly attacked as “supernatural” by two apparently diametrically opposed, but rather similar groups of people – materialists/physicalists and religious fundamentalists. The former usually equalize naturalism with their own materialism/physicalism; the latter try to explain away anything that is not supported by their dogma as “the work of Devil”. But naturalism is much broader concept than materialism; non-materialistic naturalism is also possible.

                              Defining naturalism is a very hard work; I remember Paul asked me to define it on the one of the recent threads. Well, I’ll try to define what I mean when I say “naturalism”. But before I define it, I’ll give a detailed explanation of my understanding of naturalism, including non-materialistic one, to make such definition meaningful.

                              I think naturalism has several components: ontological, cosmological, epistemological, anthropological and axiological (e.g. ethic and aesthetic).

                              In the ontological sense, naturalism means that the whole being is a one, united, permanent and interdependent system of mutual interactions. There is no form of being which is separated from this interdependent system of interactions, and, therefore, either does not influence the rest of the reality, or influence it just occasionally, in a way which is not intrinsic to the one system of interactions (which may lead to defining this part of the world as “supernatural”, and its occasional influence as a “miracle”). I need to notice that such description does not necessarily imply ontological monism; ontological pluralism can also be naturalistic, if it state that different forms of being are not separate worlds which are (relatively) independent and interact only occasionally, but just different parts of one, united, permanent and interdependent system of mutual interactions; interaction of these parts are permanent and intrinsic to the whole system. It also does not necessarily imply that this permanent system of interactions is constant, e.g. fixed and unchangeable; it can be a self-developing system as well, with a potential of change and transformation being its basic intrinsic quality.

                              In the cosmological sense, naturalism means that reality is self-sufficient and do not need any pre-existing entity to create it. One can understand it as a total rejection of the idea of God and, therefore, of theism; but this is not so. One should learn to separate the supernaturalistic idea of God-as-Creator from the naturalistic idea of God-as-Source. I need to explain the difference here. Supernatural Creator is separate from its creation, and not a part of it; it is independent from it; it can occasionally influence it (producing “miracles”), but cannot be influenced by it (it can only be “asked” to do something, by a religious prayer or ritual). Natural Source is the fundamental part of reality, which not only initiates its existence, but permanently remains in it; it is the inseparable part of interdependent system of mutual interactions; its influences are one of the forms of the one system’s intrinsic interactions, and it can be influenced by other parts of the system. So, naturalistic theism is quite possible – as well as naturalistic pantheism, in which the Source is not some exact part of reality, but some general force which runs through all parts of it, uniting them.

                              In the epistemological sense, naturalism means that everything existent is potentially knowable to human beings. It does not mean that everything existent is scientifically knowable; scientific method has its limits. It also does not mean that everything existent is knowable by the cotemporary means of learning and cognition. Our possibilities are based on – and limited by – our current experience and perception, our language and communication, and our society. And our perception, language and society are not as highly developed as we sometimes think. But we are evolving; all limitations are temporary, and the more our abilities to explore reality will develop, the more we will learn; and there is nothing which is absolutely unknowable to us. Everything that seems to be unknowable – and, therefore, “supernatural” – to somebody, is just beyond our contemporary level of experiential, perceptive, linguistic, communicative and social development; but, as our abilities develop, a veil of mystery is transcended, and something apparently “unknowable” becomes knowable. There are no unknowable “supernatural” entities; there are just temporary limitations of our abilities of cognition, which we are able to overcome because of our evolution.

                              In the anthropological sense, naturalism means that human beings are the intrinsic part of the one, united, permanent and interdependent system of mutual interactions, not some external entities who came (or were forced to come) into it. We are not some “supernatural” beings, who were sent to reality from beyond it because of some reason, such as “the original sin”. We are the part of reality, always were one and always will be one. One just should remember that by saying “reality”, I do not mean only physical reality; the physical matter is just a part of reality, one of its forms and/or manifestations. Spiritual forms/manifestations of reality, including the post-mortem spiritual realms – so-called “afterlife” – are also the intrinsic and permanent parts of reality, as much as the socio-linguistically based cultural forms/manifestations of it. We depend to spiritual parts of reality as much as to cultural and physical ones, because these parts form one, united, permanent and interdependent system of mutual interactions.

                              In the axiological sense, naturalism means that reality and human existence are valuable as themselves, not because of some reason beyond them. One should remember that supernaturalistic doctrines of ethics and aesthetics – such as ones of traditional organized religions – imply that the ultimate value of being done not belong to this world, but to the realms beyond it, such as supernaturalistically interpreted “Heaven” and “Hell”. This world is tainted by “sin” and is not valuable as itself; its value is only transitional, because it serves the role of the “battleground for souls” between “good” and “evil” supernatural forces. Human existence is also not valuable as itself, because of its “sinful” nature; it is just the way to achieve “salvation”, which is a pass from the reality, which is just transition, to the supernaturalistically interpreted “Heaven”, which is the ultimate value –and the reason of existence – of human beings. To the contrary, naturalism, including non-materialistic and pro-survival naturalism, does not identify the reality and human beings as tainted by any “sin” from which they should be “saved”. There is no need for “salvations” and “saviors”; there are no “sins” to atone to be allowed into some supernatural realm beyond reality. Reality and human existence – all forms of human existence, such as physical, cultural and spiritual – are good and normal as they are, and are valuable as themselves; but they can become even better with evolution and development. Evolution and development, including spiritual evolution and development, are not “salvation”, because our present state is not bad or negative in any way. Children develop to become adolescents, and adolescents develop to become adults; but does it mean that childhood and adolescence are “negative” states, from which one should be “saved”? Or that they only have only transitional value and are not valuable as themselves? Childhood, adolescence, adulthood are positive and valuable as themselves, but also as stages of development. I need to notice that the possibility of the post-mortem existence gives such developmental, evolutionary value to adulthood, because one’s spiritual development is not lost at death, but proceed to the further stages of evolution. So, every stage of existence hold both its own intrinsic value, the value of being itself, and the evolutionary value, the value of its potential development. The mindful development, one which preserves the benefits of any stage of existence while consciously using these benefits to evolve into the next stage, is the ultimate meta-value of naturalistic axiology.

                              So, now, after this rather lengthy explanation what naturalism is, I can give my definition of it. Naturalism is a conceptual framework that states that the whole being is a one, united, permanent (but not necessarily constant) and interdependent system of mutual interactions, which is self-sufficient and do not need any pre-existing entity to create it, contain human beings as its intrinsic part and potentially knowable to them, and is valuable as itself, making human existence also valuable as itself.
                              Last edited by Vortex; March 12th, 2013, 10:03 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Very good excursion, Vortex! I think it's worth reposting or at least linking at Smithy's thread.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X