A
recent LiveScience article was entitled “Are 'Flatliners' Really
Conscious After Death?” The story quoted Sam Parnia, a doctor who
has researched near-death experiences, in which people give amazing
accounts after having a close brush with death. Although it didn't
give us the full story, and kind of filtered out some of the most
important facts, the LiveScience story was mainly accurate. But there
was a serious inaccuracy in the article's statement that “Recent
studies have shown that animals experience a surge in brain activity
in the minutes after death.” There was only one such study, and it
showed a spike in a single type of brain wave at a moment 30 seconds
after a rat's head had been severed, not “minutes after death.”
The LiveScience story made
clear that we should absolutely not expect brain activity for more
than a few seconds after someone's heart stopped. It states, “The
brain's cerebral cortex — the so-called "thinking part"
of the brain — also slows down instantly, and flatlines, meaning
that no brainwaves are visible on an electric monitor, within 2 to 20
seconds.” This is brain wave activity. Unconsciousness occurs
within 6 seconds after the heart stops. At this web site, a
cardiology expert tells us, “The interval between last heart beat
and passing out can vary from 3 seconds to about 6 seconds.”
The LiveScience article
quotes Parnia discussing what are called veridical near-death
experiences:
But the LiveScience story
completely fails to tell us anything about the duration of these
recollections. Were these merely patients remembering the first 10
seconds after heart failure, as their brain activity faded out? We
can't tell from the LiveScience story. The answer is actually: no.
People lose consciousness within six seconds after their heart stops,
not long enough to report details of medical resuscitation efforts.
What the LiveScience story
also fails to mention is that when such veridical near-death
experiences occur, a person will typically report floating out of
his body, something that is completely at odds with current scientist
dogmas claiming that consciousness is purely a product of the brain.
The person reporting the experience will not report lying in his body
while resuscitation efforts occurred. He will typically report being
above his body, looking down on it.
The LiveScience story
spurred the appearance of similar stories in the press, some of which
had headlines that were unfounded. Newsweek.com had a story entitled
“What Happens After You Die? The Brain Keeps Working Long Enough
for Thoughts to Form.” No, studies of near-death experiences
(including Parnia's research) do not justify any such claim, and are
consistent with the idea that your brain shuts down within a few
seconds after the heart stops. Such research is not a story of “the
brain continuing to work after the heart stops” but a story of
“consciousness continuing after the brain has shut down.”
We have in some of these
stories a case of writers trying to hammer the round peg of
near-death experiences into the square hole of neurological dogmas
that consciousness is equivalent to brain activity. It's a mismatch
that won't work, no matter how hard you hammer.
The idea of the mind
continuing after the brain has shut down should not come as a big
surprise to anyone who has noticed the great disarray of
scientists in their efforts to explain how the most basic mind
activities could be produced by brains. Neuroscientists have no
plausible tale to tell of how brains could produce abstract thoughts,
or how brains could instantly recall distant memories. If some small part of
your brain stores an obscure memory, in some tiny neural location, how could your brain know where
that exact storage spot was, in order to retrieve the information
instantly? Our scientists cannot answer this most basic question, discussed here.
When it comes to how
memories could be stored in the brain, our neuroscientists are
flip-flopping all over the place. A recent MIT article tells us some
researchers have offered a “new theory of memory formation”
different from the “strengthening of synapses” theory that has
been the standard story for decades. Their theory is that memories
are stored in a “pattern of connections.” The “strengthening of
synapses” theory is indeed untenable, mainly because the protein
molecules involved in such strengthening are very short-lived,
lasting only a few weeks. But a theory of a storage in the pattern
itself is equally untenable. For such a theory to be true there would
have to be some grand neuron coordinator precisely coordinating
connections over many different neurons to make such a pattern
correspond to a memory. Nothing like that is known to exist, and we cannot plausibly
imagine it existing. A memory can be formed instantly, but neuron
connections form slowly. We have some experience of information
being stored in binary form and in DNA,
but no one has any plausible model of how it could even be possible
to store information in a “pattern of connections” between brain
cells.
But despite such huge
explanatory shortfalls, those who have been indoctrinated in the dogmas of
modern academia will continue to speak as they have been conditioned,
and will mostly speak like Twin 1 in the imaginary dialog below between two yet-to-be born twins in the womb.
Twin 1: It looks
like our happy time here in the wet womb is almost over. It's almost
time for that fatal event known as “birth.”
Twin 2: I don't
believe that birth will be our end. I believe in what I call “life
after birth.”
Twin 1: Life
after birth? Preposterous! When birth occurs, we will be severed
from the umbilical cord that is the sole source of our nourishment.
Death must soon follow.
Twin 2: I'm not so
sure. Maybe there's some way we can survive. Somehow I think there
is some mysterious reality beyond this familiar womb we have known
all our existence.
Twin 1: A reality
beyond the womb? What could possibly make you think of such
extravagant nonsense?
Twin 2: I sometimes
seem to get faint, irregular signals. It's as if I could occasionally
hear faint voices coming from beyond the womb we live in.
Twin 1: Oh, so you
think you've picked up paranormal signals? It's all just in your
mind.
The faint voices
occasionally heard by Twin 2 (the voice of parents) may be analogous
to the irregular indications humans seem to get of a reality beyond
our physical reality, through things such as medium activity,
apparition sightings, deathbed visions, near-death experiences and the appearance of
mysterious orbs in photos.
Postscript: In response to my point about memory recall, a person might argue that the brain doesn't need to know the exact location of some tiny spot where it recalls a memory; since all cells are connected, the brain can scan until it finds what it is looking for. But that is not how memory recall seems to work. If you say the name of a famous person such as John Kennedy, I do not have some mental experience of searching through memory like someone flipping the pages of an encyclopedia. I do not see in my mind's eye many images flashing until I finally reach the image of John Kennedy. Instead, you suddenly say "John Kennedy," and I instantly retrieve nothing at all except the image of John Kennedy. How could that work so quickly, if the image is stored in, say, brain location #834,342,430, and I have no way of remembering that the image is stored in that location, in a brain that has no coordinate or addressing system allowing exact brain addresses? Nor will it work to claim that the image is stored everywhere in my brain, an idea that becomes rather ridiculous as it leads to thinking that there are billions of brain places I am storing the image of Spongebob Squarepants. It seems that there is no plausible detailed theory of brain storage of memory compatible with our experience of instantaneous recall of obscure memories, little bits of information learned long ago and thought about never or almost never since that time. Attempts at such theories never properly explain instantaneous recall or the wonder of hyperthymesia. It seems that memory must involve something more than just the brain, an idea compatible with the phenomenon of near-death experiences, a phenomenon suggesting that something like a soul exists.
Postscript: In response to my point about memory recall, a person might argue that the brain doesn't need to know the exact location of some tiny spot where it recalls a memory; since all cells are connected, the brain can scan until it finds what it is looking for. But that is not how memory recall seems to work. If you say the name of a famous person such as John Kennedy, I do not have some mental experience of searching through memory like someone flipping the pages of an encyclopedia. I do not see in my mind's eye many images flashing until I finally reach the image of John Kennedy. Instead, you suddenly say "John Kennedy," and I instantly retrieve nothing at all except the image of John Kennedy. How could that work so quickly, if the image is stored in, say, brain location #834,342,430, and I have no way of remembering that the image is stored in that location, in a brain that has no coordinate or addressing system allowing exact brain addresses? Nor will it work to claim that the image is stored everywhere in my brain, an idea that becomes rather ridiculous as it leads to thinking that there are billions of brain places I am storing the image of Spongebob Squarepants. It seems that there is no plausible detailed theory of brain storage of memory compatible with our experience of instantaneous recall of obscure memories, little bits of information learned long ago and thought about never or almost never since that time. Attempts at such theories never properly explain instantaneous recall or the wonder of hyperthymesia. It seems that memory must involve something more than just the brain, an idea compatible with the phenomenon of near-death experiences, a phenomenon suggesting that something like a soul exists.
No comments:
Post a Comment