I don't know if they can claim "the first scientific framework for the near-death experience". Dr. Strassman (http://www.rickstrassman.com) experimented on humans in the mid 90's could consistently reproduce near-death experiences by administering DMT intravenously.
Depends on what sort of grip you have on your world. I'd suggest it, but only if you've already crossed the line into Needles anyway: once you have gone there, if you take drugs recreationally at all, you will start doing it with everything.
So, no, not really worth it, unless you're willing to make that choice.
"“It will form the foundation for future human studies investigating mental experiences occurring in the dying brain, including seeing light during cardiac arrest,” she says."
I am a big fan of science and research - and I think we should always be questioning everything. But I'm curious to know what benefits this research has. I genuinely don't know where this kind of research could lead so I'm not naive enough to suggest it's not a good use of time or resources, but how can this help us improve our lives, health and world? Does it matter? Not to be crass, but are those last vestiges of electrical energy in a dying brain going to be of any use?
A whole lot of seemingly useless science does end up being useful later on in ways we don't imagine. I doubt Mersenne and Fermat envisioned their work being used to secure banking transactions. However, mathematics is typically harmless to animals, so it doesn't really matter if it never ends up being useful. This study was both immediately useless _and_ harmful.
The UofM ethics board must really be a rubber stamp if it approves asphyxiating and shocking to death a bunch of rats just to study near-death experiences.
This reminds of when I read Stiff (an amazing book, by the way) [0], and how scientists in the good old days were weighing bodies before and after death, trying to find a weight of the soul, or any other quantitative values for the soul. I found that funny, but off-putting and disturbing.
My take: people are looking for any proof of the afterlife, holding onto a sliver hope proven by any scientific, factual account. I call the gamble on the afterlife faith, and why it cannot be guaranteed, but hey, that is way out of the scope of this conversation.
If you really take the concept of a soul living in some astral dimension seriously, then performing experiments to try to pinpoint its interface with ordinary matter (the body) makes perfect sense.
If you're not interested in getting experimental evidence for your idea, whatever it might be, it could be that you don't even believe there is any. Maybe you actually think the idea isn't even true in the literal sense.
Demanding that research show immediate practicality is a good way to end up doing no meaningful research whatsoever.
Virtually every major discovery in the past hundred years (if not more) stems from research that had no obvious direct application. The biggest benefit of the post-industrial society is being able to spend time on things that aren't immediately useful, but potentially have greater benefits further down the road.
Keep in mind that "All breakthroughs are derived from basic research" (if true) doesn't entail "All basic research leads to breakthroughs".
We still need to judge the merit of basic research; in this case I'm slightly more skeptical as to its potential to unravel, well, anything about the mind at all.
I agree with you on the need to use judgement. In this case though, while the research might not tell us much about the mind, knowing more about the regions of the brain that are active during an NDE could provide more insight into how the brain is physically affected by oxygen starvation. It might also help with designing physical and psychological therapies for the negative consequences [1] of near death experiences for survivors.
It does seen like a lot of the discussion about this subject is (often implicitly) trying to address a religious/afterlife aspect of nde. For example, the article says 'The "near-death experience" reported by cardiac arrest survivors worldwide may be grounded in science'. The brain is a physical object that is subject to the laws of physics, so that "grounding" is inevitable whether we know how it works or not. This shouldn't be surprising and there isn't an alternative, short of admitting religion or parapsychology.
I dunno - isn't this the most useless experiment ever? The brain reacts to death throes of the body. Who would have thought? I would imagine being killed would be a pretty significant experience for the brain, and usually a completely new one.
Also I was under the impression that clinical death implied that there are no more brain waves.
The brain is an electro-chemical system [1][2]. That is, signals propagate via potential differences created by the presence of charged ions. In the prolonged absence of oxygen, the biochemistry of the brain ceases at a cellular level. Electrical potential differences smooth-out to the level of thermal noise. Anything left radiates out as heat until the body reaches the ambient temperature of its environment.
The radiated energy still exists in the universe, but the second law of thermodynamics implies that it is unlikely to be participating in a low-entropy system like a brain again.
I have a hard time with talking of "transformation" of electrical patterns in dying brains and "Is there more to existence than we are capable of understanding?". I don't really know what these questions mean.
I've seen a couple of people die in front of me and its a deeply upsetting experience that is charged with meaning. But thats on the level of human emotional experience. On a physical level, death is just something that bodies do at some point before their constituent matter and energy goes off to do other things in the universe. Trying to unload human emotional baggage relating to human existence (principally, fear of death) onto physical processes that are pretty well understood (biochemistry) gets us nowhere, because really where do you stop?
If electrical energy is what constitutes brain activity, then what happens to that energy when death occurs?
What happens to electrical energy in a computer when we switch it off? I'd say that nothing very interesting.
"Constitutes" is also somewhat ambiguous. It's the structure of that electrical currents that depends on neural connections what I would say brain activity is.
Once the neurons are unusable, the energy by itself is just dispersed, mere electrons with no shape. So we... die.
