Michael Prescott's Blog

Haven’t had a chance to read the post yet, Michael, but the high standard you set for titles has just soared to a new level.

If the brain=mind model has any validity, then brain states should match the level of awareness, because, according to the standard model, electrical activity in the brain produces consciousness.
After all, awareness *is* the brain state -apparantly.
In order to report a higher level of awareness, which many NDErs report, we should expect electrical activity across the brain to be at a level higher than normal, but instead what we have here, even in these so called ‘surges’, is still a minimal level of electrical activity, certainly not enough to form even minimal ‘normal’ awareness, never mind heightened awareness.
The recent experiments with Psilocybin (the active ingredient in magic mushrooms) has only confirmed this. Despite media reports to the contrary, stating that Psilocybin ‘increases brain activity’, in actuality, these hallucinogens only *decrease overall brain activity*.
However, decreased brain activity actually results in some of the most cogent, hyper aware states of consciousness ever experienced by the subject, in complete contradiction to the standard brain=mind model.
For the media misrepresentation of the recent Psilocybin studies, please visit Bernardo Kastrup’s blog, where he discusses this in greater detail, and more convincingly than I ever could!
Regards,
Douglas

For the media misrepresentation of the recent Psilocybin studies, please visit Bernardo Kastrup’s blog, where he discusses this in greater detail, and more convincingly than I ever could!
Regards, Douglas

Here’s the link:
http://www.bernardokastrup.com/search?q=psilocybin

Here’s a piquant Kastrup quote:

As an extreme skeptic (so much so that I am often described by skeptics as a believer!), I am sure of nothing but the fact that I am conscious. . . . And the problem I see with the modern skeptical movement is a lack of skepticism and critical attitude; namely, skepticism and critical attitude towards their own default positions.

When I first became interested in NDEs, a compelling factor which influenced my thinking was the empirical evidence suggesting that no brain activity was corresponding to complex structured awareness. Now clearly anything which genuinely brings this notion into question does undermine, at least to some degree, this important line of evidence supporting the spiritual nature of near death experiences.
I have not read any of the technical papers supporting the claim that these electrical spikes in the brain are the likely cause of NDEs, but it is reasonable to be initially cautious of such claims (not necessarily the presence of electrical spikes during the death process, but their significance in relation to NDEs). This caution is warranted because NDEs clearly invoke strong emotions on both sides of the debate, and there has been plenty of evidence that sceptics, even the more educated ones, are very biased against the idea of NDEs having a non-materialist explanation, and will typically espouse arguments that reflect this strong bias. I guess ultimately the devil is in the details, and it is probably worth investing a bit of time closely examining the relevant technical papers. Having said this however, I think the bottom line might be that the relevance of the spikes will remain an open question for some time to come. At this stage it is unlikely that anyone can convincingly ascertain the true significance of these electrical spikes to NDEs.
As I have not read the papers yet, there is one point I am not quite clear on. It has been demonstrated in a number of cases that there is no detectable brain activity during NDEs, certainly the ones involving cardiac arrest cases. Is it the claim of these scientists that these spikes are likely present in such cases anyway but occurring too deep in the brain to be detected?
It is important to bear in mind however that just because something is theoretically possible (from the point of view of a limited knowledge perspective) does not mean it is probable. As always, opinions on this will depend on the background beliefs of the individual. Anyone who is a philosophical materialist will immediately seize on the slightest suggestion that a materialist explanation is possible (this is just stating the obvious of course). Speaking personally, I am an agnostic with regards to such things as the afterlife, but I am certainly not an agnostic regarding reductive materialism, which is demonstrably false (I can’t possibly meaningfully quality that statement here, but hope to write a number of guest posts on this blog when I have chance, outlining some of the main reasons I know this to be the case). Despite the claims of certain individuals, there are currently no viable theories of consciousness (again another statement I can’t meaningfully qualify here). Partly as a consequence of the above realizations, I do not personally believe that the brain produces consciousness, much less awareness during NDEs. It is important to acknowledge however that the brain undoubtedly influences the structure of conscious experience; hence the neural correlates of consciousness.
I am sure that any sceptic who heard someone continuing to claim that NDEs are genuine spiritual experiences despite this recent revelation of brain spikes in dying rats would take this as proof positive that believers will cling to their beliefs despite any evidence which works against their viewpoints. However this works both ways. It is unquestionably the case that all the evidence of veridical NDEs, and the absence of detectable brain activity during these episodes, has typically had absolutely no traction with sceptics. They are every bit as dogmatic as they claim believers of NDEs to be.
Again, to state the obvious, these brain spikes do not address the phenomenon of veridical NDEs, or at least cases where the NDEer could not possibly be aware of what they claimed to know, even given that they had some kind of limited brain functioning. These cases however constitute a relatively small minority of the total number of NDE cases, so I guess a sceptic could just simply discount such cases on this basis alone, simply reasoning that these minority cases are either instances of fraud or are simply due to some other more mundane explanation.
The bottom line is that from a believers point of view the ideal situation is to have a categorical black and white shut case of their being absolutely no brain activity during NDEs. This makes a materialistic explanation of NDEs very tricky indeed. However the reality is that this situation is not so black and white as one would like to hope for. But one should guard against the more extravagant claims of materialistic sceptics who are as good as suggesting that these electrical spikes are almost certainly the explanation for NDEs.

Mark writes: “It is important to acknowledge however that the brain undoubtedly influences the structure of conscious experience; hence the neural correlates of consciousness.”
“The bottom line is that from a believers point of view the ideal situation is to have a categorical black and white shut case of their being absolutely no brain activity during NDEs.”
But if the brain necessarily influences the structure of consciousness then, surely, there has to be some kind of brain activity at some level for the conscious experience to be structured and recorded in memory when full consciousness re-emerges? Or am I missing something vital in the permutation?

Julie wrote: ‘But if the brain necessarily influences the structure of consciousness then, surely, there has to be some kind of brain activity at some level for the conscious experience to be structured and recorded in memory when full consciousness re-emerges? Or am I missing something vital in the permutation?’
Going back to Bernardo Kastrup’s blog mentioned earlier, Bernardo has no problem with some brain correlation. In fact he says that his hypothesis ‘kind of requires it’.
In his view, memories are not in themselves stored in the brain, but they are *retrieved* by the brain, so we should expect some neural activity when recalling memories. Upon regaining ‘normal’ consciousness from an NDE, the ‘retrieval pathway’, for want of a better phrase, is then encoded in the brain, not the memory itself.
This process is why it’s technically incorrect to say that dementia destroys memories. I think it’s more correct to say that dementia destroys *access* to memories.
This is why advanced dementia patients sometimes have moments of lucidity where they remember a small detail from 40 years ago, but a few seconds later and it’s gone again, something I’ve witnessed on several occasions. For this reason, I think Bernardo’s right. As to where memories are actually stored, that’s still an open question. I have a feeling that they are not stored in the body at all – they belong to ‘the field’.

To relate it to reported near death experiences in humans they’d have to have evidence that the rats were having a near death experience, and dead rats can’t report.
The only way to have any information about the internal experience of a living being is by their report of that experience. This should always be pointed out. And there is no way and there never will be any way to fact check the accuracy or truth or quality of that experience because the one experiencing it is the only one who knows anything about it, they are the one and only expert of their own experience.
Such neuroscience isn’t science, it’s ideological propaganda.
What a pointlessly sadistic experiment.

Douglas wrote,
||In his view, memories are not in themselves stored in the brain, but they are *retrieved* by the brain, so we should expect some neural activity when recalling memories. Upon regaining ‘normal’ consciousness from an NDE, the ‘retrieval pathway’, for want of a better phrase, is then encoded in the brain, not the memory itself.||
That is cool. He and I have arrived at this conclusion independently. I think the science 100% backs this up. No specific memory location in the brain has been found to date.
||This process is why it’s technically incorrect to say that dementia destroys memories. I think it’s more correct to say that dementia destroys *access* to memories.||
Agreed. And the normal loss of memory over time is the same thing.
||As to where memories are actually stored, that’s still an open question. I have a feeling that they are not stored in the body at all – they belong to ‘the field’.||
Yes. I posit information by its very nature is indestructible, and the brain is simply accessing that information (both the “thing itself” and previous brain states).

Juan wrote,
||While I agnostic about materialism because one could always expand its conception to include the afterlife as part of physical world. That field where the nervous system accesses memory could be physical for example.||
We’ve talked about this a bit on here before, but I think one point bears repeating: materialism as it is currently conceived is what it is because its adherents are atheists who actively disbelieve in the Afterlife, psi, and so on. If proof of psi comes to be accepted by the establishment, I doubt that “materialism” will live on, including the name, as it will be a completely tainted “brand” at that point.

Juan wrote “The opposite happens to me: I think it is most likely that there is a personal afterlife due to some cases of OBEs, NDEs, apparitions of the deceased, mediumship and children who remember their past lives.
Don’t get me wrong. I find some NDE accounts quite convincing, and on balance of probability think they are genuine spiritual experiences (which btw is perfectly compatible with being an agnostic).
“While I agnostic about materialism because one could always expand its conception to include the afterlife as part of physical world. That field where the nervous system accesses memory could be physical for example.”
I would go as far as saying that it is probably misleading to think of the afterlife as being strictly part of a different dimension or reality. But we know even this ‘physical’ world is not actually physical, much less the afterlife. It is all made up of energy, which you surely must agree is not a physical object. Of course it is possible to define the word ‘physical’ in a way in which it will encompass pure energy, but that would be pure semantics.

Well, how long does that electrical surge, be it able to generate consciousness or not (most likely not), last for after cardiac arrest? In people its assumed that for about 20 to 30 seconds after cardiac arrest the brain is still working. That is widely acknowledged in NDE research which is why the results of the AWARE study were so important. Or is that electrical surge supposed to take place right after those 20-30 seconds?

Julie wrote: “Cells do not ‘die’ immediately when life ends. Therefore we must (surely?) consider the possibility of neuronal activity within the brain beyond the point of death – for whatever length of time.”
I think you are missing a vital point here Julie. It is not so much whether cells are alive or dead but whether they are functioning. The physiology of cellular activity is quite well understood, and it is well established that cells do not function for very long without oxygen. The cells might be alive but if there is no neural activity then this suggests consciousness might not result from neural activity, would you agree? My TV might not be broken, but if it was switched off I would be quite mystified if there was picture and sound coming from it.

Julie said:
“In short, I suspect that cellular activity continues to sustain the capability for regained consciousness for considerably longer than might generally be accepted.”
And yet what’s astonishing about the NDE (not to argue with you, Julie, because I suspect you’ll agree with me) is that at the very moment when body processes are at their lowest ebb, a subject will report having the most profound experience of his or her life.
How and why does the state of least physical viability—to the point of being undetectable—sustain the most efficient memory (NDErs consistently report recovering lost memories from childhood), and the most intense ecstasy?
Not to mention the accurate out-of-body observations that are reported again and again.
Residual cellular activity or no, mainstream science isn’t prepared to answer questions like these.

Ps. Sorry for putting all that rather clumsily, but I’ve got to dash . . . . I’m off to see a man about a horse. 🙂

“I find some NDE accounts quite convincing, and on balance of probability think they are genuine spiritual experiences (which btw is perfectly compatible with being an agnostic).”
The issue is whether NDEs are evidence of a afterlife, not if they are genuine spiritual experiences.
“But we know even this ‘physical’ world is not actually physical, much less the afterlife. It is all made up of energy, which you surely must agree is not a physical object.”
The energy is physical. Does not physics study it? Physical is what physics are about, not the material objects of everyday life.

Well done.