Proof of Heaven

[colt44]

and another "As a neuroscientist, I can tell you this article is based on junk science. It?s very amateurish given that it?s from a neurosurgeon, but I suspect that?s the only reason it?s getting so much attention in the first place. So let me point out two very flawed assumptions in this article:

1. that his neocortex could have been ?simply off.? The way it?s stated, it?s nonsense. If his neocortical neurons were ?stunned to complete inactivity,? then his neocortex would have died (which it didn?t, evidenced by this article). It?s a fundamental fact of neurobiology ? if neurons don?t fire, their axons retract, and then they die. This happens in a matter of hours. Moreover, deprive neurons of the ability to metabolize, and they die in a matter of minutes (think suffocation ?> brain damage in about 6 minutes).

What the author means to say is that his brain was suppressed to a very low level of metabolic activity (in an MR or PET scan, this looks like a dramatic decline in activity, but this isn?t something you can see in a CT scan showing the extent of meningitis, so that reference seems like a bizarre attempt to sound credible). Anyway, some might call that being ?shut off?, but make no mistake ? biologically, it?s not at all the case. Even doctors make this mistake, but a neurosurgeon should know better.

2. that either consciousness resides in the neocortex, or it must be outside the body. Consciousness involves the whole brain (neocortex, subcortical nuclei, thalamus, midbrain structures, etc.), not just the neocortex, which the author mistakenly identifies as being the ?human? part of the brain (virtually all mammals have it; elephants have more than we do). Kids who grow up without a cortex have lived as long as twelve years old and experience a very rich consciousness.

Consciousness can be altered much more dramatically by lesioning SUBcortical structures than by lesioning the cortex. Deficits in consciousness caused by cortical lesions can be RESTORED by specific subcortical lesions (look up ?sprague effect?).

Lastly, we?ve known for nearly a decade now that many people in a persistent vegetative state DO show low levels of intrinsic brain activity, and specific activity in response to emotionally salient stimuli (hearing family tell stories, etc.)

Conclusion: This article is marshmallow fluff. His cortex wasn?t off, and it?s not the only thing that gives rise to consciousness anyway. So don?t accept amateurish claims like ?my cortex was turned off but i still felt stuff so god exists.? Consciousness is an undending puzzle, but this ain?t the magic piece!"

This guys is pretty much getting torn apart in the blogosphere amongst the neuroscience community

[BeefEater]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Yep, just like I thought…here comes the barnyard full of old hens (except this time almost without variance they are the college age male crowd) clucking away about needing “proof.”

What intellectual geniuses you fellers are. I feel graced being in your presence.[/quote]

Push it is the author who is claiming that this is proof, yet he provides no proof. If a Hindi neurosurgeon had a NDE and claimed it as proof of their version of an afterlife, would you accept that?

[pat]

[quote]colt44 wrote:
and another "As a neuroscientist, I can tell you this article is based on junk science. It?s very amateurish given that it?s from a neurosurgeon, but I suspect that?s the only reason it?s getting so much attention in the first place. So let me point out two very flawed assumptions in this article:

1. that his neocortex could have been ?simply off.? The way it?s stated, it?s nonsense. If his neocortical neurons were ?stunned to complete inactivity,? then his neocortex would have died (which it didn?t, evidenced by this article). It?s a fundamental fact of neurobiology ? if neurons don?t fire, their axons retract, and then they die. This happens in a matter of hours. Moreover, deprive neurons of the ability to metabolize, and they die in a matter of minutes (think suffocation ?> brain damage in about 6 minutes).

What the author means to say is that his brain was suppressed to a very low level of metabolic activity (in an MR or PET scan, this looks like a dramatic decline in activity, but this isn?t something you can see in a CT scan showing the extent of meningitis, so that reference seems like a bizarre attempt to sound credible). Anyway, some might call that being ?shut off?, but make no mistake ? biologically, it?s not at all the case. Even doctors make this mistake, but a neurosurgeon should know better.

2. that either consciousness resides in the neocortex, or it must be outside the body. Consciousness involves the whole brain (neocortex, subcortical nuclei, thalamus, midbrain structures, etc.), not just the neocortex, which the author mistakenly identifies as being the ?human? part of the brain (virtually all mammals have it; elephants have more than we do). Kids who grow up without a cortex have lived as long as twelve years old and experience a very rich consciousness.

Consciousness can be altered much more dramatically by lesioning SUBcortical structures than by lesioning the cortex. Deficits in consciousness caused by cortical lesions can be RESTORED by specific subcortical lesions (look up ?sprague effect?).

Lastly, we?ve known for nearly a decade now that many people in a persistent vegetative state DO show low levels of intrinsic brain activity, and specific activity in response to emotionally salient stimuli (hearing family tell stories, etc.)

Conclusion: This article is marshmallow fluff. His cortex wasn?t off, and it?s not the only thing that gives rise to consciousness anyway. So don?t accept amateurish claims like ?my cortex was turned off but i still felt stuff so god exists.? Consciousness is an undending puzzle, but this ain?t the magic piece!"

This guys is pretty much getting torn apart in the blogosphere amongst the neuroscience community [/quote]

How would you ‘prove’ this scientifically? It’s a personal experience. I think would think the burden lies on those saying what he experienced wasn’t real. That’s a heavily damaged, or partially shut down brain can produce a more intense state of consciousness than a fully functioning healthy one. It seems counter intuitive to say that brain on shutdown or diminshed state produces a state of super consciousness.

[postholedigger]

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
I’d be more interested to see “proof” if hell exists.[/quote]

…ever get stuck somewhere when “Somebody That I Used to Know” or “We Are Young” comes on the radio and you don’t have control of the radio dial?

[colt44]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:
and another "As a neuroscientist, I can tell you this article is based on junk science. It?s very amateurish given that it?s from a neurosurgeon, but I suspect that?s the only reason it?s getting so much attention in the first place. So let me point out two very flawed assumptions in this article:

1. that his neocortex could have been ?simply off.? The way it?s stated, it?s nonsense. If his neocortical neurons were ?stunned to complete inactivity,? then his neocortex would have died (which it didn?t, evidenced by this article). It?s a fundamental fact of neurobiology ? if neurons don?t fire, their axons retract, and then they die. This happens in a matter of hours. Moreover, deprive neurons of the ability to metabolize, and they die in a matter of minutes (think suffocation ?> brain damage in about 6 minutes).

What the author means to say is that his brain was suppressed to a very low level of metabolic activity (in an MR or PET scan, this looks like a dramatic decline in activity, but this isn?t something you can see in a CT scan showing the extent of meningitis, so that reference seems like a bizarre attempt to sound credible). Anyway, some might call that being ?shut off?, but make no mistake ? biologically, it?s not at all the case. Even doctors make this mistake, but a neurosurgeon should know better.

2. that either consciousness resides in the neocortex, or it must be outside the body. Consciousness involves the whole brain (neocortex, subcortical nuclei, thalamus, midbrain structures, etc.), not just the neocortex, which the author mistakenly identifies as being the ?human? part of the brain (virtually all mammals have it; elephants have more than we do). Kids who grow up without a cortex have lived as long as twelve years old and experience a very rich consciousness.

Consciousness can be altered much more dramatically by lesioning SUBcortical structures than by lesioning the cortex. Deficits in consciousness caused by cortical lesions can be RESTORED by specific subcortical lesions (look up ?sprague effect?).

Lastly, we?ve known for nearly a decade now that many people in a persistent vegetative state DO show low levels of intrinsic brain activity, and specific activity in response to emotionally salient stimuli (hearing family tell stories, etc.)

Conclusion: This article is marshmallow fluff. His cortex wasn?t off, and it?s not the only thing that gives rise to consciousness anyway. So don?t accept amateurish claims like ?my cortex was turned off but i still felt stuff so god exists.? Consciousness is an undending puzzle, but this ain?t the magic piece!"

This guys is pretty much getting torn apart in the blogosphere amongst the neuroscience community [/quote]

How would you ‘prove’ this scientifically? It’s a personal experience. I think would think the burden lies on those saying what he experienced wasn’t real. That’s a heavily damaged, or partially shut down brain can produce a more intense state of consciousness than a fully functioning healthy one. It seems counter intuitive to say that brain on shutdown or diminshed state produces a state of super consciousness.[/quote]

I agree, I do not think we can definitively prove scientifically that his experience wasn’t true, although I do believe through science we can diminish its probability (but not necessarily its possibility). Furthermore, i dont believe he can prove that it was true. Ultimately this will boil down to burden of proof as you mentioned, and judging by past history here in PWI, why dont we just skip ahead and forget trying to show who has that burden lol

[colt44]

This could be an explanation9rom a link i already posted):

While his experience is certainly interesting, his entire premise is flimsily based on a single word in the above paragraph ? ?while.? He assumes that the experiences he remembers after waking from the coma occurred while his cortex was completely inactive. He does not even seem aware of the fact that he is making that assumption or that it is the central premise of his claim, as he does not address it in his article.

Of course his brain did not go instantly from completely inactive to normal or near normal waking consciousness. That transition must have taken at least hours, if not a day or more. During that time his neurological exam would not have changed significantly, if at all. The coma exam looks mainly at basic brainstem function and reflexes, and can only dimly examine cortical function (through response to pain) and cannot examine higher cortical functions at all. His recovery would have become apparent, then, when his brain recovered sufficiently for him to show signs of consciousness.

Alexander claims there is no scientific explanation for his experiences, but I just gave one. They occurred while his brain function was either on the way down or on the way back up, or both, not while there was little to no brain activity. During this time he would have been in an altered state of consciousness, with different parts of his cortex functioning to different degrees. This state is analogous to certain drug-induced mental states, or those induced by hypoxia and well documented, and there is even some overlap with the normal dream state. All of these are states in which the brain?s construction of reality is significantly different from the normal waking state.

Documented features of these altered states (and features commonly experienced by everyone during dreams) include a sense of oneness with the universe, a sense of the profound, of being in the presence of a godlike figure, and of automatic knowledge with absolute certainty. The latter is not uncommon during dreams ? you just know things in your dreams that were not communicated or directly observed, and you have no doubt about that knowledge."

[ZEB]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Yep, just like I thought…here comes the barnyard full of old hens (except this time almost without variance they are the college age male crowd) clucking away about needing “proof.”

What intellectual geniuses you fellers are. I feel graced being in your presence.[/quote]

LOL…you took the words right off of my future post.

[BeefEater]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Yep, just like I thought…here comes the barnyard full of old hens (except this time almost without variance they are the college age male crowd) clucking away about needing “proof.”

What intellectual geniuses you fellers are. I feel graced being in your presence.[/quote]

LOL…you took the words right off of my future post.

[/quote]

Then apparently you are both missing the fact that it is the author who is bringing proof into the conversation.

[pat]

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:
and another "As a neuroscientist, I can tell you this article is based on junk science. It?s very amateurish given that it?s from a neurosurgeon, but I suspect that?s the only reason it?s getting so much attention in the first place. So let me point out two very flawed assumptions in this article:

1. that his neocortex could have been ?simply off.? The way it?s stated, it?s nonsense. If his neocortical neurons were ?stunned to complete inactivity,? then his neocortex would have died (which it didn?t, evidenced by this article). It?s a fundamental fact of neurobiology ? if neurons don?t fire, their axons retract, and then they die. This happens in a matter of hours. Moreover, deprive neurons of the ability to metabolize, and they die in a matter of minutes (think suffocation ?> brain damage in about 6 minutes).

What the author means to say is that his brain was suppressed to a very low level of metabolic activity (in an MR or PET scan, this looks like a dramatic decline in activity, but this isn?t something you can see in a CT scan showing the extent of meningitis, so that reference seems like a bizarre attempt to sound credible). Anyway, some might call that being ?shut off?, but make no mistake ? biologically, it?s not at all the case. Even doctors make this mistake, but a neurosurgeon should know better.

2. that either consciousness resides in the neocortex, or it must be outside the body. Consciousness involves the whole brain (neocortex, subcortical nuclei, thalamus, midbrain structures, etc.), not just the neocortex, which the author mistakenly identifies as being the ?human? part of the brain (virtually all mammals have it; elephants have more than we do). Kids who grow up without a cortex have lived as long as twelve years old and experience a very rich consciousness.

Consciousness can be altered much more dramatically by lesioning SUBcortical structures than by lesioning the cortex. Deficits in consciousness caused by cortical lesions can be RESTORED by specific subcortical lesions (look up ?sprague effect?).

Lastly, we?ve known for nearly a decade now that many people in a persistent vegetative state DO show low levels of intrinsic brain activity, and specific activity in response to emotionally salient stimuli (hearing family tell stories, etc.)

Conclusion: This article is marshmallow fluff. His cortex wasn?t off, and it?s not the only thing that gives rise to consciousness anyway. So don?t accept amateurish claims like ?my cortex was turned off but i still felt stuff so god exists.? Consciousness is an undending puzzle, but this ain?t the magic piece!"

This guys is pretty much getting torn apart in the blogosphere amongst the neuroscience community [/quote]

How would you ‘prove’ this scientifically? It’s a personal experience. I think would think the burden lies on those saying what he experienced wasn’t real. That’s a heavily damaged, or partially shut down brain can produce a more intense state of consciousness than a fully functioning healthy one. It seems counter intuitive to say that brain on shutdown or diminshed state produces a state of super consciousness.[/quote]

I agree, I do not think we can definitively prove scientifically that his experience wasn’t true, although I do believe through science we can diminish its probability (but not necessarily its possibility). Furthermore, i dont believe he can prove that it was true. Ultimately this will boil down to burden of proof as you mentioned, and judging by past history here in PWI, why dont we just skip ahead and forget trying to show who has that burden lol
[/quote]

The burden of proof shifts really to those who say he didn’t have it, or what he says about it wasn’t true. While Dr. Novella brought up some interesting points, he didn’t look at the author’s case. He was talking in general terms and the Dr. Alexander was talking about his case. Not cases in general.
The it also begs the question, how can a brain in a diminished or near dead state, produce a state of super consciousness? That’s a tough case to make indeed for the claim is that a healthy brain is unable to reach levels of a super consciousness. Or create a delusion so profound that it trumps the reality sensed through a normal healthy brain.
Of course then the whole notion of consciousness is in question.

Looking at the facts the author had a health brain before getting ill. Had a profound experience while being very nearly dead. Has a healthy brain again and claims that, that experience is still more real.

[Lonnie123]

No one is doubting the authors EXPERIENCE. What some of us doubt is that this “proves” than heaven exists. What seems more LIKELY is that his brain generated experiences common with other peoples brains who can undergone similar experiences. Remember, his brain was either non functioning, or functioning at a subnormal level the entire time he was in the coma… And he expects us to believe his story.

Would you believe someone you knew to have subnormal brain function? Now factor in things like memory, time, and human desire and the story really doesn’t hold up in my opinion

His experiences(a sense of oneness with the universe, a sense of the profound, of being in the presence of a godlike figure, and of automatic knowledge with absolute certainty) are VERY similar to others who have gone through similar events, and are in fact REPRODUCIBLE to a degree with chemicals.

He claims this all happened while his brain was “off” - But there is no reason to assume that is true. There would have been a period of time where his brain was “powering down” and likewise “coming back online” … Both of these times are ripe to have these kinds of feelings and emotions.

Time is also very subjective during these altered brain states. Many people coming out of surgery will ask the equivalent of “when do we start?” only to be told that in fact its already over. They are completely taken by surprise by this information. I’m sure many of us have had the experience during sleep where we wake up thinking we JUST put our head on the pillow, but we have in fact been asleep 8 hours. That is a real experience, but it does not make the conclusion (that we have not slept at all) true.

[Lonnie123]

[quote]pat wrote:
The burden of proof shifts really to those who say he didn’t have it, or what he says about it wasn’t true. [/quote]

False… The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim. If I claim “There is an invisible, floating dragon in my garage” it is not on everyone else to disprove that statement, it is on me to provide evidence. The problem with putting the burden on the other side is that NO amount of “disproving” will ever be sufficient, while only one piece of evidence is enough to lend credibility.

Also, no one is doubting that he had the experience, just his interpretation of it.

[pat]

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The burden of proof shifts really to those who say he didn’t have it, or what he says about it wasn’t true. [/quote]

False… The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim. If I claim “There is an invisible, floating dragon in my garage” it is not on everyone else to disprove that statement, it is on me to provide evidence. The problem with putting the burden on the other side is that NO amount of “disproving” will ever be sufficient, while only one piece of evidence is enough to lend credibility.

Also, no one is doubting that he had the experience, just his interpretation of it.[/quote]

He already laid out his claim and supports for it. Once he’s done that, then it shifts. It doesn’t eternally stay on the claimant to provide endless amounts of evidence. He said “Here’s what happened, here’s why it’s true.”

[BeefEater]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cluck. Cluck. Cluck.[/quote]

- YouTube

[BeefEater]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The burden of proof shifts really to those who say he didn’t have it, or what he says about it wasn’t true. [/quote]

False… The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim. If I claim “There is an invisible, floating dragon in my garage” it is not on everyone else to disprove that statement, it is on me to provide evidence. The problem with putting the burden on the other side is that NO amount of “disproving” will ever be sufficient, while only one piece of evidence is enough to lend credibility.

Also, no one is doubting that he had the experience, just his interpretation of it.[/quote]

He already laid out his claim and supports for it. Once he’s done that, then it shifts. It doesn’t eternally stay on the claimant to provide endless amounts of evidence. He said “Here’s what happened, here’s why it’s true.” [/quote]

The thing is he provides no evidence for his claim. If I tried to make a case to arrest my neighbor for robbery based on something I saw when I was asleep, I doubt anyone would take that seriously. All he has is a claim, with no backup.

[pat]

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
No one is doubting the authors EXPERIENCE. What some of us doubt is that this “proves” than heaven exists. What seems more LIKELY is that his brain generated experiences common with other peoples brains who can undergone similar experiences. Remember, his brain was either non functioning, or functioning at a subnormal level the entire time he was in the coma… And he expects us to believe his story.
[/quote]
How is it more likely? There is nothing stating that his experience was likely generated by his brain.

Would you believe someone you knew to have subnormal brain function? Now factor in things like memory, time, and human desire and the story really doesn’t hold up in my opinion

Since all physical facts are matters of consensus, you couldn’t really know unless you had confirmation from others. If a single person tells a blind man the sky is red, the blind man has no way of knowing unless he gets consensus from others that it is not.
The problem is that this is a singular personal experience, so consensus flies out the window. Based on you experience in life and all the information you have recieved through out it, you beleive his experience is brain generated. But there is no evidence, by consensus or otherwise that his personal experience wasn’t exactly what he stated it was.
Generally speaking, a person who had once diminished brain capacity and then became healthy, that person knows that the experience was not real. However, in this case, you have a well educated neurosurgeon, with vast experience explaining that he experienced something that was real and profound, looking back with a healthy brain. Usually, looking back one would realize that what he experienced was not a real experience. But his claims are that it was ‘more real’.

Now this is actually consistent with epistemology and/ of metaphysics in that the metaphysical is indeed a ‘more real’ existence. Indeed metaphysics is in control of all that is physical. An atom cannot break the rules that guide it. Gravity is not stronger than it’s law. So being more conscious in a metaphysical state of existence is certainly consistent with reality itself.
So by his experience we only have his word, but metaphysics itself is a more real state. It’s a state where the senses cannot be fooled.

His experiences(a sense of oneness with the universe, a sense of the profound, of being in the presence of a godlike figure, and of automatic knowledge with absolute certainty) are VERY similar to others who have gone through similar events, and are in fact REPRODUCIBLE to a degree with chemicals.

I have done my fair share of LSD, no doubt about it. And while you can chemically alter your perception of consciousness, you cannot alter consciousness itself. Perhaps chemicals can alter or even enhance your sense of consciousness, it cannot change what is.

Further this notion of the oneness and openness of the universe is consistent with what we know about it. At it’s core, everything in the universe is made out of the same stuff. So in a sense there is oneness there. It all came from the same source it’s all made of the same stuff.

He claims this all happened while his brain was “off” - But there is no reason to assume that is true. There would have been a period of time where his brain was “powering down” and likewise “coming back online” … Both of these times are ripe to have these kinds of feelings and emotions.

And you know this how?

Time is also very subjective during these altered brain states. Many people coming out of surgery will ask the equivalent of “when do we start?” only to be told that in fact its already over. They are completely taken by surprise by this information. I’m sure many of us have had the experience during sleep where we wake up thinking we JUST put our head on the pillow, but we have in fact been asleep 8 hours. That is a real experience, but it does not make the conclusion (that we have not slept at all) true.

You would have to demonstrate that these varied altered consistently produce these very profound experiences with a healthy degree of statistical significance. I know some attempts have been made with said ‘tunnel of light’ syndrome. However, they have no been conducted on people who have claimed the NDE and then been subjected to the test. Only they could tell you if it’s the same or not.

Then there is the other issue where people with NDE’s have known about people or things they could not have possibly known about. How can you accurately see places or people doing things while at the time, your technically dead. That doesn’t follow with the ‘it’s all in there head’ theory.

[Sloth]

Interesting, but not proof of heaven.