DrmDoc

You have to ask yourself if what your hearing actually involved people under brain distress at the time of their NDE. The fact that they survived to convey their story suggests that what they experienced may have been more dream-like than an actual experience caused by a dying brain. What actually were the physiological circumstances of those persons who reported intensely negative NDEs? Also, what was the precise nature of their negative NDEs? Did their NDEs involve reliving negative life experiences? I've never heard of an NDE that involve reliving some painful experience in one's life; therefore, NDEs must be about something else that the dying brain is experiencing that doesn't involve opening old emotional or mental wounds. It seems to me that what concerns you appears to involve reported experiences that only have importance if you survive and not die. If you survive a NDE that is obviously a good thing. If you don't, then what would it matter because you would be no longer alive and suffering. Unless you have some concern about an afterlife, which is something I don't think anyone can confidently or competently address. If you're thinking about NDEs, then you're thinking about surviving. If so, your thoughts should be focusing on the recovery process. To move your mind beyond a fixed negative position, as you believe you might experience through an NDE, you will have to focus your thoughts beyond that position to a point of positive recovery. Fixating on the negative will surely prolong your negative experience and recovery from it. Fixate on recovery.

Essentially...yes! ​

Nightmares are likely more intense than NDE because nightmares generally don't involve a brain in aerobic and metabolic distress. A dying brain secretes a series of neurochemicals (dopamine and endorphins) that produce soothing and euphoric effects. This doesn't happen during nightmares because the dreaming brain isn't actively engaged in life sustaining efforts. Soothing and euphoria inducing brain chemistry produced near-death emphasizes a low-intensity distinction in NDEs from nightmares.

Illuminating, thanks for the link.

For functional anatomy I recommend Kolb B., Whishaw IQ., Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology, New York: Worth Publishers. Or, Nolte,J., The Human Brain: An Introduction to Its Functional Anatomy, St. Louis: Mosby Publishers. For pure anatomy, Netter F.H., Atlas of Human Anatomy, New Jersey: Icon Learning Systems Publishers. I hope this helps.

NDEs are produced by brain function and are not independent or separated from the functions that produce your awareness of the experience. Your awareness and the NDE would occupy the same canvass painted by the same functional artist. Whatever the power or effect an NDE might have would be equivalent to the measure of your mentality within that experience. What people are reporting with NDEs are their recollections of a lofty experience from the seemingly less lofty conscious state of the after experience, which is why the former seemed more intense. Precisely!

Yes, a hyperconscious state would elevate your mentation relative to every experience you might have under normal circumstances. Consciousness involves a concert or confluence of brain function in response to the measure of stimuli. Enhanced stimuli equals enhanced functional responses to that stimuli.

A hyperactive brain isn't necessarily a hyperconscious brain regardless of how those researchers have characterized their results. As a point of fact, our brain activity routinely reach levels above conscious activity whenever we dream. Enhanced activity doesn't equal enhanced consciousness relative to brain function especially when not confirmed by confluent conscious sensory perception. That enhanced activity we find near-death is the brain generating sufficient activity as to bring life sustaining blood flow into its structure. The researcher induced near-death in those test animals by cardiac arrest. What those researchers were likely measuring was the hyperactive response to generate or restart blood flow to a dying brain in distress.

Near-death, dreaming, and consciousness involve definitively different states of brain function. How the brain is activated amid each state is distinct. At near-death, the brain is in physiological distress, which is not the same as a nightmares. Nightmares arise amid those restorative metabolic processes of sleep that replenish our brain's energy reserves as I have described in prior discussions. Near-death, the brain is being energy and oxygen deprived as it struggles to maintain function, which is not a struggle the brain experiences amid nightmares. Amid nightmares, the brain is likely responding to elevated stress but not as what we might experience near-death, which may involve deprivation of essential reserves. Neither near-death nor nightmare experiences are equivalent to normal conscious experience because conscious brain function and focus is suffused with real physical/material sensory perceptions and experiences. Of the three (near-death, nightmares, and conscious) experiences, conscious experience is considerably more intense because it involves confluent mental and real physical perceptions that can become lasting memory and leave indelible psychological impressions. Intense near-death experiences in the form of reliving some prior life event cannot reach the level of true conscious experience because near-death experiences are not confluent with real sensory experiences. Near-death experiences do not involve full consciousness relative to brain function and the perception of real sensory experiences. NDE and consciousness are not the same.

I see; therefore, in particle terms, if my envelope revealed heads, DrP's would reveal tails. So, this is not entanglement in the sense that what happens to one particle affects another, correct? Essentially, separating superposition particles is merely separating entangled polar particle into their separate or opposite polar state, correct?

That was a very interesting read. In quantum mechanics, if I now understand correctly, superposition describes a particle's continuous oscillation from one state to another, which only becomes fixed by observation. To support this principle, your link mention the double-slit experiment with which I'm very familiar. Still, it's difficult to understand how observation fix a particle's state unless it's merely our observation that is fixed--meaning we are only able to detect what we observe. I agree with Einstein, this is all very "Spooky."

Logically, I think, superposition has to be more than supposition to be a valid observation. If observation is a form of measurement and the only determining factor, superposition is most likely supposition; wherein, particles are merely thought to exist in a duo state without direct evidence of same. This would seem to be very much like Schrodinger's cat, in my opinion. Thank you, I'd be very interested in viewing it.

I see. How does one determine superposition? How does know that the separate particles within a duo state share those qualities until observed or measured?

So, this is one of those Schrodinger's cat type conundrums where observation influences state or is this something entirely different? I accessed this description of Quantum Entanglement which, if I understand correctly, essentially states that measuring one particle or particles of a pair or group correlates to the observed effects of the other entangled particle or particles--measuring one particle, changes the shared state of the other. Is that accurate?

How is quantum entanglement assessed if not measured? I'm somewhat familiar with the idea of entanglement relative to speculative notions such as teleportation. What are the facts or is it all sci-fi fantasy?

Indeed? Please, elucidate.

How does the saying goes? "There may be snow on the roof but there's ice in the oven." Or is it "fire"? Yes, it's fire! I think my memory is as sharp as ever, it's just the mixing of words I clearly know and have used correctly but don't notice right away when I use them incorrectly. I try to convey what I mean in as few words as possible. It's frustrating to subsequently find what I've conveyed wasn't what I meant. No doubt I'll be reviewing every line of what I'm typing here several hundred times. Ha! Ha! However, homonyms encompass both homophones and homographs.

Prepare for a new age of secure communication. According to this New York Times article on MSN, China has launched the first--that we know of--quantum satellite, which uses entangled photons to transmit information. The article says that the current transmission rate is glacial and compared the current status of this technology to that of the telegraph. The article contains links to other announcements about the launch and the nature of the technology. Enjoy!

Advanced years, maybe but I doubt a mini-stroke. This sort a thing's been happening for a while now and it only involves my writing not my thinking. However, I am due for a physical...maybe I'll get some good news.

And here I am again, the word is shudder not shutter-ugh! I read it a thousand times before I realized how rapidly mental decay (decay not decade, ugh) is overtaking or taking over.

I would being very interested in reading about your experiences whatever they may be. If you have interest, post them here: General Anesthesia.

Hey! I have an idea, why don't we slice open one of his femurs and count the rings?

According to this MSN article, the rate of women dying during childbirth has risen from 7.2 per 100,000 birth in 1987 to 15.9 in 2013. This article says this increase is occurring at a rate higher than any other developed nation. The stated primary causes of this increasing mortality rate are cardiovascular and chronic diseases such as diabetes, which are likely the afflictions of an increasingly unhealthy diet among American women.

Integrity tests are an interesting idea but who would administer them and how might they be implemented across the various disciplines? Most certainly not, I think, by the institutions funding and pursuing research. They are invested in a process where negative results could affect future funding and institutional prestige. I agree that the most effective solution is independent research verification by reproduction but I also acknowledge that there are few incentives to do so. Perhaps the only solution here is to incentivize the process of independent verification, which excludes the sponsoring institution.

If I may, inborn, innate, instinctive behavior. Seven, right? Although I think monogamy is none of those for humans.