Now on ScienceBlogs: Will Quantum Fusion Save the Day?

Subscribe for $15 to National Geographic Magazine

Search

Profile

pzm_profile_pic.jpg
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
zf_pharyngula.jpg …and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
a longer profile of yours truly
my calendar
Nature Network
RichardDawkins Network
facebook
MySpace
Twitter
Atheist Nexus
the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)



I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

scarlet_A.png
I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

When the church teaches that "confession is good for the soul," it teaches false doctrine; it is only good for the church.

[Lemuel K. Washburn, Is The Bible Worth Reading And Other Essays, 1911]

Recent Posts


A Taste of Pharyngula

Recent Comments

Archives


Blogroll

Other Information

« Friday Cephalopod: Onward! Upward! | Main | Gaily frolicking squid »

More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!

Near-death, rehashed

Category: Bad scienceNeurobiology
Posted on: April 30, 2012 11:50 AM, by PZ Myers

The story so far: Mario Beauregard published a very silly article in Salon, claiming that Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) were proof of life after death, a claim that he attempted to support with a couple of feeble anecdotes. I replied, pointing out that NDEs are delusions, and his anecdotal evidence was not evidence at all. Now Salon has given Beauregard another shot at it, and he has replied with a "rebuttal" to my refutation. You will not be surprised to learn that he has no evidence to add, and his response is simply a predictable rehashing of the same flawed reasoning he has exercised throughout.

In his previous sally, he cited the story of Maria's Shoe, a tall tale that has been circulating in the New Age community for decades, always growing in the telling. This story is the claim that a woman with a heart condition was hospitalized, and while unconscious with a heart attack, her spirit floated out of the coronary care unit to observe a shoe on a third-floor ledge. As has been shown, she described nothing that could not be learned by mundane observation, no supernatural events required, and further, that the story is peculiarly unverifiable: "Maria" cannot be found, not even in the hospital records, and no one has been found who even knew this woman. The entire story is hearsay with no independent evidence whatsoever.

Beauregard attempts to salvage the story by layering on more detail. The description of the shoe was very specific, he says, right down to the placement of the laces and the pattern of wear, and she could not possibly have learned this by overhearing staff talking about it because "it would have been difficult for Maria to understand the location of the shoe in the hospital and the details of its appearance because she spoke very little English." This is a curious observation; the claim is that she could not understand a description of the shoe, but she was able to describe the shoe herself to a woman, Kimberly Clark Sharp, who did not understand Spanish.

"When I got to the critical-care unit, Maria was lying slightly elevated in bed, eyes wild, arms flailing, and speaking Spanish excitedly," recounts Sharp. "I had no idea what she was saying, but I went to her and grabbed her by the shoulders. Our faces were inches apart, our eyes locked together, and I could see she had something important to tell me."

The question isn't whether a seriously ill woman with poor command of English could see the shoe; it's whether a healthy, ambulatory, English-speaking woman who has made a career out of the myth of NDEs could see the shoe. Beauregard's additions to the anecdote do not increase its credibility at all.

Beauregard adds another anecdote to the litany, the story of another cardiac patient who was resuscitated and later recounted seeing a particular nurse while his brain was not functional. Seriously — more anecdotes don't help his case. He threatens to have even more of these stories in a book he's in the process of publishing, but there's no point. He could recite a thousand vague rumors and poorly documented examples with ambiguous interpretations, and it wouldn't salvage his thesis.

This new anecdote is more of the same. The patient is comatose and with no heart rhythm when brought into the hospital; over a week later, he claims to recognize a particular nurse as having been present during his crisis, and mentions that she put his dentures in a drawer.

I am underwhelmed. I must introduce Beauregard to two very common terms that are well understood in the neuroscience community.

The first is confabulation. This is an extremely common psychological process in which we fill in gaps in our memory with fabrications. I described this in my previous response, but Beauregard chose to disregard it. The patient above has a large gap in his memory, but he knows that he existed in that period, and something must have happened; he knows that he was resuscitated in a hospital, so can imagine a scene in which he was surrounded by doctors and nurses; he knows that his dentures are missing, so he suspects that someone put them somewhere, likely one of the people surrounding him during the emergency. So his brain fills in the gap with a plausible narrative. This whole process is routine and unsurprising, and far more likely than that his mind went wandering away from his brain.

The second term is confirmation bias. Only positive responses that confirm Beauregard's expectations are noted. The patient guessed that a nurse he met during his routine care was also present during his episode of unconsciousness, and he was correct. What if he'd guessed wrongly? That event would be unexceptional, nobody would have made note of it, and Beauregard would not now be trotting out this incident as a vindication of his hypothesis. This is one of the problems of building a case on anecdotes; without knowledge of the range and likelihood of various results, one can't distinguish the selective presentation of chance events from a measurable phenomenon.

While unaware of basic concepts in science, Beauregard seems to readily adopt the most woo-ish buzzwords. His explanation for this purported power of the mind to exist independently of any physical substrate is, unfortunately and predictably, quantum mechanics. Every charlatan in the world seems to believe that attaching "quantum" to a word makes it magical and powerful and unquestionable. I have to accept Terry Pratchett's rebuttal: "'Let's call it Quantum!' is not an explanation." And neither is Beauregard's feeble insistence that the universe possesses quantum consciousness, that psychic powers represent quantum phenomena, or that there is an infinitely loving Cosmic Intelligence.

Beauregard then accuses me of having an ideological bias, and that I'm a fanatical fundamentalist. He, of course, is the dispassionate, objective observer with no axe to grind, only interested in reporting the scientific facts. Unfortunately, his book The Spiritual Brain reveals to the contrary that he has some very, very strange beliefs.

"Individual minds and selves arise from and are linked together by a divine Ground of Being (or primordial matrix). That is the spaceless, timeless, and infinite Spirit, which is the ever-present source of cosmic order, the matrix of the whole universe, including both physics (material nature) and psyche (spiritual nature). Mind and consciousness represent a fundamental and irreducible property of the Ground of Being. Not only does the subjective experience of the phenomenal world exist within mind and consciousness, but mind, consciousness, and self profoundly affect the physical world...it is this fundamental unity and interconnectedness that allows the human mind to causally affect physical reality and permits psi interaction between humans and with physical or biological systems. With regard to this issue, it is interesting to note that quantum physicists increasingly recognize the mental nature of the universe."

If I am an ideologue, it's only in that I demand that if you call something science, it bear some resemblance in method and approach to science, not mysticism. Beauregard insists on trying to endorse the babbling piffle above as science by reciting the number of publications he has made, and how much grant money he's got, when I'm looking for verifiable, reproducible, measurable evidence.

I would also remind him that Isaac Newton, who was probably an even greater scientist than the inestimable Beauregard, wasted much of his later years on mysticism, too: from alchemy and the quest for the Philosopher's Stone, to arcane Biblical hermeneutics, extracting prophecies of the end of the world from numerological analyses of Revelation. While his mechanics and optics have stood the test of time, that nonsense has not. That his mathematics and physics are useful and powerful does not imply that he was correct in his calculation that the world will end before 2060 AD; similarly, Beauregard's success in publishing in psychiatry journals does not imply that his unsupportable fantasies of minds flitting about unfettered by brains is reasonable.

(Also on FtB)

Share on Facebook
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Facebook
Find more posts in: Life Science

Jump to end

Comments

#1

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Jhb3zkHjtajlOhMMHHCDjoaq8Cevp7Qg9_y3HjWtQcQ#38341 Author Profile Page | April 30, 2012 3:35 PM

Near Death Experiences are proof of the afterlife, solid proof. They are not anecdotal, but have been verified by research scientists. I have had a NDE personally and have studied them for 25 years. I wrote a book on them and you can read some of it and a veridical NDE at this site http://kenkatin.com

#2

Posted by: John Pieret Author Profile Page | April 30, 2012 3:57 PM

"Individual minds and selves arise from and are linked together by a divine Ground of Being (or primordial matrix). That is the spaceless, timeless, and infinite Spirit, which is the ever-present source of cosmic order, the matrix of the whole universe, including both physics (material nature) and psyche (spiritual nature). Mind and consciousness represent a fundamental and irreducible property of the Ground of Being. Not only does the subjective experience of the phenomenal world exist within mind and consciousness, but mind, consciousness, and self profoundly affect the physical world...it is this fundamental unity and interconnectedness that allows the human mind to causally affect physical reality and permits psi interaction between humans and with physical or biological systems.

Isn't this guy describing The Force? Maybe you'd better find out if he owns a light saber before you go calling him out.

#3

Posted by: David Marjanović Author Profile Page | April 30, 2012 6:08 PM

With regard to this issue, it is interesting to note that quantum physicists increasingly recognize the mental nature of the universe.

With regard to that sentence, it is interesting to note that Beauregard makes shit up as he goes along.

(I'm not sure if he's conscious of the fact that he's lying.)

a veridical NDE

Really... search this site for "NDE" and spend a few hours (or days) reading the discussions.

#4

Posted by: Tomato Addict Author Profile Page | April 30, 2012 6:16 PM

>"Near Death Experiences are proof of the afterlife, solid proof."

This is like saying that presents under the tree on the morning of December 25th are proof - solid proof - of Santa Claus. Perhaps you might seek another explanation, such as: NDEs are a malfunction of an oxygen-starved brain.

#5

Posted by: stevelaudig Author Profile Page | April 30, 2012 7:48 PM

Christ seems to have had a near death [or should it be called a post-death experience?] [Robert Graves wrote his speculations on it after undergoing something he took to be similar] and viola a church gets manufactured by those coming after. If the ancients could do such conjuring, why not some moderns? It's a comforting thought that you live after you die. It can sell a lot of tickets. Rather like peddling insurance where the premiums always get paid but the benefits part of the policy never has to be paid because only the dead know the fraud of it.

#6

Posted by: user-illusion.myopenid.com Author Profile Page | April 30, 2012 9:10 PM

The comments on that Salon article are, for the most part, quite depressing, but one offered a link to this excellent article that obliterates the QM woo nonsense about consciousness: http://physics.ucsc.edu/~michael/qefoundations.pdf

#7

Posted by: ChasCPeterson Author Profile Page | April 30, 2012 9:40 PM

@#1: Ho-ly shit: it's Kenny (about 1/3 down) !!!!!!!!!

Kenny, man, wow. You wrote your book.

Wow.

#8

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist Author Profile Page | April 30, 2012 10:26 PM

Kenny had a NDE?


....


You bastards!

#9

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/X3bu0swmzOkh79r7M._Q0dO3TQ6UaA--#8c8a3 Author Profile Page | May 1, 2012 1:41 AM

I too have to admit to having had a nde, one caused by an unfortunate reaction to pain medication post surgery. I did not float around the hospital, have lovely interaction with deceased family members, I simply regained conciousnesss from what seemed to me to sleep and promptly entered into seizure activity. This has left me with anoxic brain injury, short term memory loss etc. On the bright side though, I don't need to look to why I am being punished, or just accept what God chooses to "test" me with. I can just continue to get on with my life and appreciate the world around me and continue to do as I have my entire life, try to figure out why and how and marvel in it all. Thank you for this fabulous site.

#10

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM Author Profile Page | May 1, 2012 7:00 AM

hey are not anecdotal, but have been verified by research scientists.
Nope, they are results of hypoxia and the brain shutting down and starting up, with resultant false memories as shown by real scientists. Liar.
#11

Posted by: mmfiore Author Profile Page | May 1, 2012 9:22 AM

Alas another skeptic of NDEs. There will never be enough evidence for the typical conservative intellectual scientist type. This type of personality is ill equipped to understand or accept a higher order more evolved intelligence that stems from that which is intuitive. The intellectual cannot get to the truth with logic alone as advanced knowledge comes directly from the Source (God) by a means that is not via intellectual logic. The Ego of the intellectual will ignore and discount other people’s experiences and evidence to support their egotistical view point. In the end when they pass away they will see for themselves when they go to the light. Now even then if their Ego still wants to deny the existence of God they can and will remain in the void. This is very sad for the intellectual. For more interesting info see my website where I refute other the world of Quantum Mechanics. http://www.superrelativity.org

#12

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM Author Profile Page | May 1, 2012 9:35 AM

This type of personality is ill equipped to understand or accept a higher order more evolved intelligence that stems from that which is intuitive.
Now, show that the intiutive actually works to advance knowledge on a consistent and rational basis, and not just your presuppostitions of imaginary things. Show us the conclusive physical evidence for your soul. Or, shut the fuck up.
#13

Posted by: Thorne Author Profile Page | May 1, 2012 9:51 AM

The intellectual cannot get to the truth with logic alone as advanced knowledge comes directly from the Source (God) by a means that is not via intellectual logic.
So what you're saying here is that only the ignorant/uneducated can know God? Yeah, that's about the way it looks to me, too.
#14

Posted by: mmfiore Author Profile Page | May 1, 2012 10:57 AM

Whoa Nerd Take it down a notch. Why are you so angry? When you curse at someone and call them names it makes you look ignorant. There are many NDEs in which people have experienced where they witness events in other areas remotely located from their bodies. These witnessed out of body experiences prove that something real is happening to them and that they still exist in reality even though they are clinically dead. Now you may not want to accept such evidence but that does not mean that the soul does not exist. You suffer from angry denial because of a flawed ideology. This will keep you in the darkness. Do you really prefer to die and completely cease to exist over a reunion with God and loved ones? You should try and keep an open mind. There is evidence out there, all you have to do is search for NDE websites and you will find that there are many examples of what I speak.

#15

Posted by: mmfiore Author Profile Page | May 1, 2012 11:10 AM

@ Thorne
Actually Thorne what I am saying is that anyone can know God not just people with high IQs. What I am saying is that a new order of personalities are arriving on the scene. You may liken them to what would be called SORCERERs. Not the kind that conjure up spells and such. What I mean by SORCERER is that these people are able to connect to the Source (God) and directly obtain knowledge and understanding and most importantly they can receive wisdom. What many people of this time do not realize is that wisdom is not a function of academics. You can possess great knowledge from places of higher learning and without wisdom you will still graduate as a fool.

#16

Posted by: Amphiox, OM Author Profile Page | May 1, 2012 11:31 AM

That would be SOURCERER, mmfiore, not sorcerer, which I'd fictional.

#17

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM Author Profile Page | May 1, 2012 11:39 AM

You can possess great knowledge from places of higher learning and without wisdom you will still graduate as a fool.
Citation need from something other than your book of mythology/fiction known as the babble, supporting your delusion of your imaginary deity existing. You are the fool, not us, as you believe without evidence. You can believe in anything without evidence, including false things, as you do.
#18

Posted by: Fred Nurke Author Profile Page | May 1, 2012 1:23 PM

#1 and #11: Get in the f*cking sack!

#19

Posted by: mmfiore Author Profile Page | May 1, 2012 1:27 PM

@ RedHead

A large number of near-death experiences have witnessed verifiable events occurring outside of their body. Unfortunately,for many people such as yourself this evidence does not constitute "scientific evidence." The reason is because scientific evidence involves replication of the experience and the existence of strict controls over the events being witnessed. Experiments can be devised to do this and perhaps will be done someday by people with open minds. Not by anyone such as yourself.

A very good example of an out of body experience is given in the book "Heaven is for Real" the little boy relates several events about his parents that went on during the time he was on the operating table. He was not only able to witness what his parents were doing but also what they were saying and thinking as well.

You can believe in anything without evidence, including false things, as you do.

Redhead you most certainly know that this statement has no meaning as it is filled with inconsistencies. First of all your refusal to accept evidence does not mean there is no evidence. Then based on the previous prevarication you declare that the beliefs of others as well as myself are false. Nothing could be further from the truth.

#20

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM Author Profile Page | May 1, 2012 1:41 PM

First of all your refusal to accept evidence does not mean there is no evidence.
Cite a scientific paper like I did, showing the whole NDE is a bunch of malarky. My paper was written by neuroscientists, who showed hypoxia, the brain shutting down, restarting, and the resultant false memories were the cause of the NDE. Your "evidence" needs to be as scientific as theirs, or it isn't evidence. It is anecdote, and the plural of anecdote is not evidence. You know that.
#21

Posted by: Amphiox, OM Author Profile Page | May 1, 2012 2:23 PM

Citations to the primary literature are required, mmfiore, where confirmation bias and other factors that always confound anecdotes are controlled for, and with proper statistical analysis.

Anecdotes in books of uncertain provenance describing events without corroboration are not evidence.

#22

Posted by: Amphiox, OM Author Profile Page | May 1, 2012 2:25 PM

NDEs are evidence for interesting things happening to human brains under stress. They are not evidence for afterlives or non corporeal souls.

#23

Posted by: mmfiore Author Profile Page | May 1, 2012 4:27 PM

@ Nerd - The paper you cited is not proof. Its more like speculation than hard evidence. Surely you can do better than that for evidence. Most of the content of the article relies on vague speculatory explantions with no solid backing at all.

The NDE study by Raymond Moody has been replicated.

In 1975, Dr. Raymond Moody published a book entitled "Life After Life" which described his findings from his study on near-death experiences. Moody's book became a bestseller and focused public attention on the NDE like never before. Moody recorded and compared the experiences of 150 persons who died, or almost died, and then recovered. Moody outlined nine elements that generally occur during NDEs: (1) hearing strange sounds, (2) feelings of peace, (3) feelings of painlessness, (4) out-of-body experiences, (5) experiencing a tunnel, (6) rising rapidly into the heavens, (7) seeing beings of light, (8) experiencing a life review, (9) a reluctance to return to the body.

Dr. Ken Ring's replicated this NDE study by Dr. Raymond Moody. Ring's research conclusions include:

(1) Dr. Moody's research findings are confirmed.

(2) NDEs happen to people of all races, genders, ages, education, marital status, and social class.

(3) Religious orientation is not a factor.

(4) People are convinced of the reality of their NDE experience.

(5) Drugs do not appear to be a factor.

(6) NDEs are not hallucinations.

(7) NDEs often involve unparalleled feelings.

(8) People lose their fear of death and appreciate life more after having an NDE.

(9) People's lives are transformed after having an NDE.

Dr. Kenneth Ring's NDE Research - www.near-death.com

I can provide more evidence, but it will make no difference as the closed mind is hard to open.

This is amusing to see how some people’s rigid ideology prevents them from considering the possibility that they may be wrong in their beliefs. What I find particularly amusing is the angst that people like Nerd of Redhead have. Someone disagrees with them and they quickly sink to name calling and angry rhetoric. This is a sure sign that these people are in the wrong.

@ Amphiox
I'll give you more citations but you have to promise to read them.

#24

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM Author Profile Page | May 1, 2012 4:43 PM

Moody recorded and compared the experiences of 150 persons who died...and then recovered.

Moody interviewed Jesus and Lazarus? I'm impressed that someone that old is still functional.

#25

Posted by: ChasCPeterson Author Profile Page | May 1, 2012 5:10 PM

(1) Dr. Moody's research findings are confirmed.

meaning that some very general commonalities can be found in self-reports of perception.

(2) NDEs happen to people of all races, genders, ages, education, marital status, and social class.
(3) Religious orientation is not a factor.

Perhaps race, gender, age, education, marital status, social class, and religious orientation are not factors in the incidence of so-called NDEs, but I will bet money that they (esp. religion) have a strong effect on the actual details of the self-reported perceptions of experience.

(4) People are convinced of the reality of their NDE experience.

people are convinced about all kinds of bullshit; we know this.

(5) Drugs do not appear to be a factor.

phew, that's a relief.

(6) NDEs are not hallucinations.

How could this assertion ever be supported by evidence? I see no reason to buy it.

(7) NDEs often involve unparalleled feelings.

so do drug experiences, sexual experiences, and thrill-sport experiences; so what?

(8) People lose their fear of death and appreciate life more after having an NDE.
(9) People's lives are transformed after having an NDE.

so what? and
so what?
People are extremely gullible; we know this.

None of this is evidence for anything except subjective experience. Nobody denies that people perceive experiences that they or others call NDEs. That's not the point.

None of it is evidence for life after death, reincarnation, souls, dualism, ghosts, Heaven, or anything else.

#26

Posted by: nulliusinverba Author Profile Page | May 1, 2012 9:29 PM

Dr. Myers, critical thinking is good. Adolescent rudeness is bad. You score one out of two. Why the need to take such a childishly aggressive tone toward those who disagree with you? It gives skepticism a bad name.

#27

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM Author Profile Page | May 1, 2012 10:12 PM

It gives skepticism a bad name.
No, tone trolls like you give skepticism a bad name. One must call a spade a spade, or stupidity stupidity. Being polite is for accommodationists who must appease everybody.
The paper you cited is not proof.
Sorry, to any real working scientist like myself it is. Peer reviewed in a respectable journal and all that, especially without any need to invoke the stupornatural. But then, we all know you don't know what evidence is, or how to rate it, thinking the plural of anecdotes is evidence, and the stupornatural exists without conclusive physical evidence for it. Real working scientists know better. What's your excuse?
#28

Posted by: Amphiox, OM Author Profile Page | May 1, 2012 10:13 PM

Your concern is noted, nulliusinverba.

#29

Posted by: Amphiox, OM Author Profile Page | May 1, 2012 10:19 PM

Every single one of Moody's and Ring's findings are 100% consistent with a neurological, fully natural, explanation for NDEs.

NONE can be considered viable evidence for NDEs being anything other than an interesting phenomenon demonstrated by human brains subject to stress.

NONE can be considered viable evidence for anything remotely resembling an afterlife or disembodied souls.

The discussion concerning parsimony has been discussed with prior NDE supporters, but it bears repeating here:

Souls and afterlives explicitly violate several well-established laws of fundamental physics and biology. While it is of course not impossible for those well-established laws to be wrong, it would be a very extra-ordinary claim, and extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.

NDEs in no way shape or form qualify as sufficiently extra-ordinary evidence.

The neurological explanation for NDEs is far more parsimonious.

#30

Posted by: Amphiox, OM Author Profile Page | May 1, 2012 10:26 PM

I'll give you more citations but you have to promise to read them.

Why the suspicious condition?

If you were really confident of your position, you would provide the citations regardless of what I do or do not. Citations are for the public domain, for all to see and evaluate.

If you truly have good supporting evidence in the form of a citation, and I dispute it without reading it, then you will have a prime opportunity to expose my argument against you as insufficient, using that same citation, and your position will be strengthened.

So what are you waiting for?

#31

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 3:29 AM

mmfiore's #11 seems like a perfect example of what Sastra often talks about: beliefs that aren't actually about what one thinks is true and whether it is indeed true, but all about what kind of person one is: enlightened, humble, open-minded, or cold and closed-minded.

Just look at it:

There will never be enough evidence for the typical conservative intellectual scientist type. This type of personality is ill equipped to understand or accept a higher order more evolved intelligence that stems from that which is intuitive. The intellectual cannot get to the truth with logic alone as advanced knowledge comes directly from the Source (God) by a means that is not via intellectual logic. The Ego of the intellectual will ignore and discount other people’s experiences and evidence to support their egotistical view point.

Brilliand method of deflecting criticism, if one thinks about it: dismissing the critics as unworthy of listening to on the grounds that you are open-minded and they are not! Must work pretty well as long as one is able to ignore the glaring contradiction.

#32

Posted by: Stanton Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 8:55 AM

Brilliand method of deflecting criticism, if one thinks about it: dismissing the critics as unworthy of listening to on the grounds that you are open-minded and they are not! Must work pretty well as long as one is able to ignore the glaring contradiction.
Don't forget the blatant hypocrisy, either.
#33

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 9:25 AM

Funny how all those responding to mmfiore have open minds, but not so open their brains fall out like its did. At the end of the day, we who responded can all be convinced by real evidence, preferably from the peer reviewed scientific literature. But we also know the plural of testament and anecdote is not data. Funny how that is all folks like mmfiore have, and they wonder why we don't take them seriously. Maybe if they were more serious about the quality of their "evidence".

#34

Posted by: David Marjanović Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 12:04 PM

The intellectual cannot get to the truth with logic alone

Indeed not. That's because several ideas can all be logical and yet contradict each other.

In such cases, the only thing that can be done is to look at what these ideas say about reality, and then look at reality to see which ideas are wrong.

That's called science.

Do you really prefer to die and completely cease to exist over a reunion with God and loved ones?

What?

Do you seriously believe reality changes based on what I want?

If you stop believing in gravity, do you float off the Earth?

Adolescent rudeness is bad.

In my experience, that's an oversimplification.

BTW, PZ's experience is similar. Don't you think it's a little arrogant of you to dismiss it in two short sentences?

#35

Posted by: mmfiore Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 1:53 PM

Okay for Amphiox try and explain this one with your scientific explanations.

Amphiox this evidence is not the kind that you will accept as a scientist. This is simply for your consideration, something for you to ponder upon and it is also for other non-scientist types who are less restricted in their thinking.

Dr. Michael Sabom is a cardiologist whose latest book, is called Light and Death, includes a detailed medical and scientific analysis of an amazing near-death experience of a woman named Pam Reynolds. The Pam Reynolds link gives all of the details that blow away your oxygen deprivation and drug induced hallucination theory explanations used by your team of scientists. She underwent a rare operation to remove a giant basilar artery aneurysm in her brain that threatened her life. The size and location of the aneurysm, however, precluded its safe removal using the standard neuro-surgical techniques. She was referred to a doctor who had pioneered a daring surgical procedure known as hypothermic cardiac arrest. It allowed Pam's aneurysm to be excised with a reasonable chance of success. This operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who perform it, required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death. After removing the aneurysm, she was restored to life. During the time that Pam was in standstill, she experienced a NDE. Her remarkably detailed veridical out-of-body observations during her surgery were later verified to be very accurate. This case is considered to be one of the strongest cases of veridical evidence in NDE research because of her ability to describe the unique surgical instruments and procedures used and her ability to describe in detail these events while she was completely incapacitated and for the second part of the NDE clinically dead.
Now in order to explain this one away you will simply say that this is subjective experience and that true. This is what you fail to consider though what if this experience is in fact real and valid. You deciding not to consider it does not invalidate it. It may be real and represent the truth regardless of your choice not to accept it as evidence.
You will of course also say that this is not an official study. I therefore say as some of you have said, so what, it is real data that can be analyzed and processed. It’s just like any other experiment that has been done. All you have to do is give it due consideration.
The first part of the NDE clearly happened before she was brain dead. Her eyes were taped shut and small molded speakers were placed in her ears. Therefore she could in no way be able see or hear anything that was going on in the operating room. This procedure was measured recorded and documented. The patient was able to recall events and conversations while she was unconscious. It should be noted the things she heard and saw were not drug induced hallucinations because what she heard and saw was confirmed by the staff.
As the operation continues complications occur and the Doctor was forced to give Reynolds a massive dose of potassium chloride. Cardiac arrest is complete. Her brain waves become flat. The brain stem responds more and more weakly to the clicks from the ear speakers. Reynolds' core temperature is about 60 °F (16 °C). The brain stem no longer responds to the clicks from the ear speakers. The brain is shut down. After this point she is dead and there should be no more experience but the NDE experience continues. This should prove to even the simplest of laymen that consciousness does continue after the body ceases to function. Now your only reply can be to simply say her experience and that of the operating staff does not count because it is not a part of an official study with peer review etc etc. I say so what. It happened and you can’t explain it.
As scientists you pride yourselves on your scientific methods. But you should also be seeking the truth and you fail to pursue it instead in cases such as this you attempt to simply explain it away. You have a fatal flaw in your methodology. The methods scientists use today is rigid and stifles creativity. They receive training that pre-conditions the typical scientist to think inside the box and remain within the box. That “box” is for many scientists an atheistic belief system. This biased belief system is transferred as a meem into your world view. This bad programming that most scientists receive while being educated is your fatal flaw. Many scientists today are arrogant (RedHead is an example of that). They stubbornly proclaim they are right based primarily on their expertise, background, and training but in reality many times their arguments are not well supported by the facts of life. Let me give you some examples. What about the time scientist said they discovered Cold Fusion. These scientists were proven wrong. How about a more recent example where physicists claimed to have found neutrinos traveling faster than light. These guys are at the top of their field as physicists but yet somehow having all of this expensive equipment and great technical knowledge using the scientific method they somehow were found to be wrong. Now I know you are also going to say that the scientific method also helped prove them wrong. Please save your breath for that comment. The point is, scientists make mistakes and get things wrong. So your so called proof against the existence of the afterlife is on very shaky ground and therefore you should acknowledge that. There should be no proclamation saying that all NDEs are a result of the brain shutting down or drugs etc. etc. The fact is you don’t really know what is happening. You “scientists” are basically way out of your league on this one and you are attempting to measure and quantify things that are generally speaking immeasurable. Then to further obfuscate the truth of our reality you misinterpret the data and twist the meaning to match your world view, which in many cases supports atheism. That’s really the bottom line isn’t it RedHead. Basically our modern day scientists have become the equivalent of the bygone day flat landers running around saying the world is flat and there is no after life.
So my advice to all people who read these articles like the one above which claims that NDEs are not real, and then it may be deduced from this article that there is no afterlife and therefore there is no God, is to take what they say with a grain of salt. Scientists are just ordinary people that have limited expertise in a particular subject and like regular people they have faults, foibles, prejudices and biases that affect their work and their judgment. In other words a lot of the time they just don’t know what they are talking about. Scientists in this case are trying to measure something that is not measurable and will not consider testimony and the experience of others as real evidence.

#36

Posted by: MaximusXVI Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 3:35 PM

Why the need to take such a childishly aggressive tone toward those who disagree with you? It gives skepticism a bad name.
Your concern is noted,nulliusinverba.
Amphiox,OM The question was for PZ, not you. Why the hell are you answering for him. Nobody care what you think!
#37

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 3:36 PM

mmfiore #35

Amphiox, OM in #29 gives a reasonable, parsimonious explanation for NDEs:

NONE can be considered viable evidence for NDEs being anything other than an interesting phenomenon demonstrated by human brains subject to stress.

We admit that such things as NDEs happen. What we don't admit is there's any supernatural cause for them. They are not evidence for gods, ghosts, souls, an afterlife, or any of the other BULLSHIT you and your fellow NDE enthusiasts try to conflate NDEs with.

Scientists in this case are trying to measure something that is not measurable and will not consider testimony and the experience of others as real evidence.

Last night I had an interesting dream. I was lost in a city, trying to get to some indeterminate destination on a bicycle. I haven't ridden a bicycle in over 20 years and I doubt I could go more than a couple of miles before the arthritis in my hip tells me to rest for a good while. Yet in my dream I was traveling great distances at high rates of speed. My mind was ignoring reality and throwing together some sort of story. Why my mind did that I don't know. NDEs are similar to my dream, something that the mind assembles out of random memories and with no relationship to reality or logic.

#38

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 3:46 PM

Amphiox,OM The question was for PZ, not you. Why the hell are you answering for him. Nobody care what you think!

This is an open blog. If you make a comment, then anyone can respond to it. If you want to talk privately with PZ, then send him an email. If you post a comment, then it's fair game.

Besides, you're just tone trolling. All Amphiox did was note your concern. All I'm doing is answering your last complaint.

Do you have anything substantial to say or are you going to whine some more?

#39

Posted by: MaximusXVI Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 3:47 PM

hey are not anecdotal, but have been verified by research scientists.

Nerd of Redhead, OM writes:


Nope, they are results of hypoxia and the brain shutting down and starting up, with resultant false memories as shown by real scientists. Liar.

Nerd of Redhead, OM.. what kind of bullshit answer is that? Who the fuck are the real scientists you are referring to? There's no emperical proof of these false memories. You mean you read it somewhere? Have you seen a false memory, touched it? You're the lying bitch here.

#40

Posted by: mechtheist Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 3:53 PM

This book resists the doctrine of creation and theories of evolution in a rational way.

He doesn't like either of them? When the book is done resisting, rationally, if it's not too tired, could it explain why all these clinically dead folk don't come back with some advice on how the clinics might stop declaring the living dead?

#41

Posted by: MaximusXVI Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 3:56 PM

Tis Himself,OM, read CAREFULLY you idiot! It wasn't my comment, it was from mmfiore

All Amphiox did was note your concern. All I'm doing is answering your last complaint.
#42

Posted by: davenullstein Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 3:58 PM

You NDE believers should take a good dose of ketamine and speak directly to your God about them.

I have and he said they were bullshit.

#43

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 4:04 PM

Who the fuck are the real scientists you are referring to? There's no emperical proof of these false memories. You mean you read it somewhere? Have you seen a false memory, touched it? You're the lying bitch here.
In black and white, from here.
We can't assume that those who report NDEs had an NDE. Nor can we be sure that only those who report having had an NDE actually had one. Two of the participants in the Dutch study first reported having an NDE two years after their close calls with death. It is possible they constructed false memories. Stories of the alleged typical NDE have been reported widely in the media.
False memories are a big problem for the NDE folks, as they are so easy to implant, especially with leading questions. But the mind can do it by itself to make sense of what is happening. Still lying about the quality of your "evidence".
#44

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 4:06 PM

You're telling ME to read carefully? You first, asshole. My post #37 was addressed to mmfiore, not you. My post #38 was addressed to your dumb ass. If you can't keep up, take notes.

And while you're at it, why don't you fuck yourself?

#45

Posted by: MaximusXVI Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 4:07 PM

You NDE believers should take a good dose of ketamine and speak directly to your God about them.

I have and he said they were bullshit.


Well who the hell are you and why should your opinion mean anything to anyone? Your thought is noted.
#46

Posted by: Sven DiMilo Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 4:11 PM

So your so called proof against the existence of the afterlife is on very shaky ground and therefore you should acknowledge that.

Nobody arguing with you here has ever called their argument "proof against the existence of the afterlife" or its equivalent. We're simply saying that your argument is not evidence for an afterlife. See the difference?

There should be no proclamation saying that all NDEs are a result of the brain shutting down or drugs etc. etc. The fact is you don’t really know what is happening.

Agreed. No such proclamations should be proclaimed.
Instead, we'll continue saying that all reported NDEs are consistent with what we know about the brain, drugs, and etc. etc. That's all. And that therefore they can't be used as evidence for anything else, especialy something that it's claimed we could never measure or know.

these articles like the one above which claims that NDEs are not real, and then it may be deduced from this article that there is no afterlife and therefore there is no God

Are you comfortable with this whole logic thing? Nobody has ever made an argument like that. All that may be deduced is that reports of NDEs are consistent with stuff we already know about, so there is absolutely no need or call to invent a whole bunch of stuff we supposedly can't know about to explain what's going on. That includes an afterlife, and a god, for that matter--they are simply unnecessary as explanations for your observations.

If you want to insist that oh yeah they might still be real anyway nobody knows for certain, then OK, I'll grant you that. Similarly, I'll grant you that there's no way to know absolutely for sure that they're not cosmic-ray-scrambled holographic projections of pornography from the Planet Gullible.

This is really pretty elementary stuff. You're, like, new to thinking?

#47

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 4:17 PM

After this point she is dead and there should be no more experience but the NDE experience continues. This should prove to even the simplest of laymen that consciousness does continue after the body ceases to function.
It proves no such thing. The most important thing you must realize about NDE's is that they are remembered and reported after the fact, after the patient's brain has resumed normal operation. You, and for that matter, her, cannot be certain that this experience took place while her brain shut down and not when she was going under or coming out of anesthesia. The explanation that doesn't defy the laws of physics wins, I'm afraid.
#48

Posted by: mmfiore Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 4:24 PM

@ Nerd of Redhead and tis himself

Listen to yourselves.

Now, show that the intuitive actually works to advance knowledge on a consistent and rational basis, and not just your presuppositions of imaginary things. Show us the conclusive physical evidence for your soul. Or, shut the fuck up.

By the way your spelling is atrocious. Intuitive is spelled like this “intuitive” and presuppositions is spelled like this “presuppositions”.

What we don't admit is there's any supernatural cause for them. They are not evidence for gods, ghosts, souls, an afterlife, or any of the other BULLSHIT you and your fellow NDE enthusiasts try to conflate NDEs with.


I thought this was a science blog you guys sound like a couple of 13 year old school kids. No credible scientists I know address people in such a crude way.

One more comment for tis himself
You said..

NDEs are similar to my dream, something that the mind assembles out of random memories and with no relationship to reality or logic.

The point you try to make is astonishingly inconsistant. It’s as if you lack the ability to focus on the content of what is being said. Most NDEs are not like dreams.

I just related an example to you in which a woman who was brain dead had vivid lucid memories some of which corresponded to events in the operating room. These events that she remembered were verified by the Doctor and operating staff. Did anyone share or verify your dream experience? Were they as vivid as your waking consciousness?

For practical purposes outside the world of academic debate, three clinical tests commonly determine brain death. First, a standard electroencephalogram, or EEG, measures brain-wave activity. A "flat" EEG denotes non-function of the cerebral cortex - the outer shell of the cerebrum. Second, auditory evoked potentials, similar to those [clicks] elicited by the ear speakers in Pam's surgery, measure brain-stem viability. Absence of these potentials indicates non-function of the brain stem. And third, documentation of no blood flow to the brain is a marker for a generalized absence of brain function.

But during "standstill", Pam's brain was found "dead" by all three clinical tests - her electroencephalogram was silent, her brain-stem response was absent, and no blood flowed through her brain. Interestingly, while in this state, she encountered the "deepest" NDE of all Atlanta Study participants. So tell me tis himself do you ever remember your dreams when you are brain dead?

Some scientists theorize that NDEs are produced by brain chemistry. But, Dr. Peter Fenwick, a neuropsychiatrist and the leading authority in Britain concerning NDEs, believes that these theories fall far short of the facts. As do your crude arguments tis himself. In the documentary, "Into the Unknown: Strange But True," Dr. Fenwick describes the state of the brain during a NDE:

"The brain isn't functioning. It's not there. It's destroyed. It's abnormal. But, yet, it can produce these very clear experiences ... an unconscious state is when the brain ceases to function. For example, if you faint, you fall to the floor, you don't know what's happening and the brain isn't working. The memory systems are particularly sensitive to unconsciousness. So, you won't remember anything. But, yet, after one of these experiences [a NDE], you come out with clear, lucid memories ... This is a real puzzle for science. I have not yet seen any good scientific explanation which can explain that fact."

#49

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 4:27 PM

By the way your spelling is atrocious
Your "evidence" and logic is atrocious. Besides, IE7 doesn't have a spellchecker.


I see not one citation to the peer reviewed scientific literature. Ergo, what you have is OPINION, not evidence. Try again. The burden of evidence is upon you to show you are right with conclusive physical evidence, not blather. We are waiting...

#50

Posted by: JustPassingBy Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 4:40 PM

I thought this was a science blog you guys sound like a couple of 13 year old school kids. No credible scientists I know address people in such a crude way.
don't worry mmfiore, that's the way these genius, scientific minds present themselves on these blogs. It's truly impressive isn't it. PZ must be so proud. - Don't expect anything more from these guys.
#51

Posted by: MaximusXVI Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 4:54 PM

By the way your spelling is atrocious. Intuitive is spelled like this “intuitive” and presuppositions is spelled like this “presuppositions”.

@ Nerd of Redhead and tis himself
You should heed the words of your linguistic editor -Owlmirror who states so clearly -

Your use of English is poor,..

Poor Nerd of Redhead pleads-

IE7 doesn't have a spellchecker.

Hey, how come we can't use the IE7 excuse. Oh wait a minute, shouldn't you be able to spell on your own after professing such intelligence.


#52

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 7:02 PM

I just related an example to you in which a woman who was brain dead had vivid lucid memories some of which corresponded to events in the operating room. These events that she remembered were verified by the Doctor and operating staff. Did anyone share or verify your dream experience? Were they as vivid as your waking consciousness?

Your anecdotal story means absolutely nothing. Anecdote ≠ data. I've heard and read too many "testimonials" to believe your anecdote is nothing but bullshit, told by someone who really, truly wants to believe that NDEs mean anything more than random firings of the brain. But I know better than to try to discuss things rationally with a true believer. Reason, logic, etc. are meaningless to you. You want to believe and so you do. Normal people don't. So go find some woo-ridden blog when you and your fellow woomiesters can whine about how the real world doesn't believe the bullshit you hold so dear.

Goodbye. And have a nice rest of your life.

#53

Posted by: Owlmirror Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 7:06 PM

Now, show that the intuitive actually works to advance knowledge on a consistent and rational basis, and not just your presuppositions of imaginary things. Show us the conclusive physical evidence for your soul. Or, shut the fuck up.

By the way your spelling is atrocious. Intuitive is spelled like this “intuitive” and presuppositions is spelled like this “presuppositions”.

Spelling words correctly is atrocious spelling?

======


You should heed the words of your linguistic editor -Owlmirror who states so clearly -

So you're not just a lying asshole, you can't even be bothered to be original.

Hey, how come we can't use the IE7 excuse.

Because you're a troll who doesn't actually give a shit about anything besides trolling.

#54

Posted by: David Marjanović Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 7:06 PM

This operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who perform it, required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death.

LOL. When your body temperature, therefore your metabolism, therefore your requirements of oxygen and glucose are lowered that much, you can survive quite some time in such a state.

American wood frogs literally freeze and survive Alaskan winters this way.

During the time that Pam was in standstill, she experienced a NDE.

During that time?

Or while she was cooling out?

Or while she was warming up again?

Or while she was waking up from anesthesia?

How could anyone tell?

After this point she is dead

No. She's simply at 16 °C.

By your definitions, every lizard, snake and turtle that lives in a temperate climate, and even the alligators in northern Georgia, dies every winter and resurrects every spring.

No destruction, no irreversible damage occurred. That's not death.

in cases such as this you attempt to simply explain it away

No, we attempt to find the simplest explanation for it – the one that requires the smallest number of extra assumptions. That's an important part of the scientific method.

So your so called proof against the existence of the afterlife

Our what?

We never said there's any such proof. What we're saying is that there's no reason to believe there is any afterlife – that there's nothing for which the existence of an afterlife would be the simplest explanation.

Amphiox,OM The question was for PZ, not you. Why the hell are you answering for him.

Don't be ridiculous. nulliusinverba obviously didn't even want to have a private conversation with PZ! If they had wanted that, they'd have e-mailed PZ. But they didn't; they posted a question in public. Literally everybody who has an Internet connection and knows English can answer in good conscience. We're talking about hundreds of millions of people here.

bitch

Misogynist.

By the way your spelling is atrocious. Intuitive is spelled like this “intuitive” and presuppositions is spelled like this “presuppositions”.

Shock horror! People make typos! The end of the world is nigh!!1!!1!1!eleventyone!!!

Have you, perchance, got an argument?

I thought this was a science blog you guys sound like a couple of 13 year old school kids. No credible scientists I know address people in such a crude way.

It shows that you don't know many scientists. Go to a couple of conferences or PhD defenses.

For practical purposes outside the world of academic debate, three clinical tests commonly determine brain death.

Yeah, because we can't poke a microscope through the skull and look if the cells are breaking down.

I just related an example to you in which a woman who was brain dead had vivid lucid memories some of which corresponded to events in the operating room. These events that she remembered were verified by the Doctor and operating staff.

And who verified that story, including the doctor and the operating staff?

Such things grow in the telling.

The brain isn't functioning. It's not there. It's destroyed.

"Destroyed" is a flat-out lie.

Really, I don't know how to sugarcoat this.

Hey, how come we can't use the IE7 excuse. Oh wait a minute, shouldn't you be able to spell on your own after professing such intelligence.

Here are mistakes of yours that can't be explained as typos:

You should heed the words of your linguistic editor -Owlmirror who states so clearly -

That should be:

You should heed the words of your linguistic editor Owlmirror, who states so clearly:

The en dash is not a hyphen, it can be written by typing Alt+0150 on the numeric keypad, and it needs a space on each side.

#55

Posted by: David Marjanović Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 7:11 PM

Alt+0150

That's in Windows. On a Mac, and probably in Unix-based operating systems, Alt+- is sufficient.

Spelling words correctly is atrocious spelling?

The Nerd didn't spell them correctly in comment 12; he wrote intiutive and presuppostitions (...that latter one might have been a deliberate pun on superstitions, but I doubt that).

Our troll misquoted the Nerd by correcting him.

Stupid troll.

#56

Posted by: Amphiox, OM Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 7:19 PM

I just related an example to you in which a woman who was brain dead had vivid lucid memories some of which corresponded to events in the operating room.

In this example, brain death was misdiagnosed. Our instruments for diagnosing brain death are not 100% perfect. Brain death by definition is irreversible. If you can wake up from it and relate a vivid memory, then you were never brain dead.

#57

Posted by: Amphiox, OM Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 7:22 PM

This operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who perform it, required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death.

Everyday terms are irrelevant.

In MEDICAL TERMS (the only relevant ones), her life was PRESERVED. Note that our instruments that measure brain waves are not accurate at low temperatures. If you lower someone's temperature and then cease to be able to measure a brain wave, that says absolutely NOTHING about the state of that person's brain function. All it demonstrates is that your brain wave measuring instrument has a known limitation.

#58

Posted by: Amphiox, OM Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 7:25 PM

American wood frogs literally freeze and survive Alaskan winters this way.

There are several known cases of hypothermic individuals surviving without oxygen for 30 minutes or more.

In medical parlance, you ain't dead until you're WARM and dead.

(The clinical examination for brain death is completely unreliable if the body temperature is lower than normal).

#59

Posted by: Amphiox, OM Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 7:29 PM

For practical purposes outside the world of academic debate, three clinical tests commonly determine brain death.

Those three clinical tests apply only to normothermic individuals whose condition is NOT MEDICALLY INDUCED. They are not direct measures of brain function (because we DO NOT HAVE SUCH A MEASURE), they are PROXY measures, and as PROXY measures, their application is restricted to a specific range of conditions, beyond which they do not apply.

It is possible to deliberately cause ALL THREE of those tests to read zero, and that DOES NOT constitute brain death. If the situation is medically induced, as it was in that scenario, the brain death criteria DO NOT APPLY.

#60

Posted by: Amphiox, OM Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 7:30 PM

This is like deja vu with Shiloh all over again.

Seriously, these new NDE supporters have not made ONE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT that was not already hashed out and thoroughly debunked over the literally months of threads with Shiloh.

I really have little interest in rehashing arguments I have already made, multiple times, on prior threads.

#61

Posted by: David Marjanović Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 7:31 PM

(The clinical examination for brain death is completely unreliable if the body temperature is lower than normal)

To put it in terms the troll might understand: the clinical tests measure brain activity. When you're cold, your brain isn't doing much if anything, but that doesn't mean it's dead.

The tests measure activity because that's all we can measure from outside the skull.

#62

Posted by: Amphiox, OM Author Profile Page | May 2, 2012 7:39 PM

Or to use another analogy, both the EEG and the auditory evoked potential (which only actually measures brainstem function in the auditory center, and only if the rest of the auditory circuit is intact, not the entire brainstem - you can lose the auditory evoked potential completely from focal damage to the auditory nerve, and have a completely normal brainstem) are equivalent to determining if a computer is working by sticking electrodes on the casing and using them to measure the voltage changes occurring in the CPU chips. The cerebral blood flow test is equivalent to checking to see if the computer is plugged in and (if a laptop) the battery is fully charged.

If you tried these tests on a computer that happened to be turned off and unplugged, they would all read zero. But that doesn't mean that the computer is necessarily damaged.

#63

Posted by: PlayTone Author Profile Page | May 3, 2012 12:00 AM

However, a cpu would not process during the time i was off. I think that's his point.

#64

Posted by: Amphiox, OM Author Profile Page | May 3, 2012 12:55 AM

However, a cpu would not process during the time i was off.

With only those three tools as described, there would be no way of knowing if the cpu was irreversibly damaged, turned off, or in sleep mode.

Leave a comment

HTML commands: <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <a href="url">link</a>, <blockquote>quote</blockquote>

Site Meter

ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

© 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.