As Prof mentioned in class, many people who get organ transplants often “inherit” characteristics of the donor. When this was brought up in our last class, it seemed to be quickly dismissed as coincidence or learning about the donor through the surgeon, neighbor, etc. However, this idea intrigued me, so I did a bit of research. The first thing I found was an article written by Paul Pearsall, PhD, Gary E. Shwartz, PhD, and Linda E. Russek, PhD that examined this phenomena, different narratives, and one mechanistic explanation for it.

Some of these case studies include a man who received a transplant from a woman and afterward began to love the smell of feminine perfume and the color pink, both of which he disliked before, a sixteen month boy who called his donor’s parents (whom he had never met before) “Mama” and “Daddy”, singling the father out of a crowd, a man who formerly hated classical music but grew to love it after receiving a transplant from a devout classical music fan, and a man who formerly loved meat but hated it after receiving a transplant from a health store manager and vegetarian woman.

Over the past ten years, Pearsall has had 74 transplant patients who claimed this phenomena happened to them. Of course, there are many factors to take into account, such as normal personality changes/truth in anecdotal evidence, but the fact that so many people have claimed to have this happened means that the phenomena does deserve some attention.

Past mechanistic explanations for this phenomena have included effects of immunosuppressant drugs,  psychosocial drugs, and pre-existing pathopsychology of the patients. This article, however, identified a new mexhanistic explanation for this phenomena. This explanation is called “living systems theory”, which posits that “all living cells possess “memory” and “decider” functional subsystems within them”. The recent integration of systems theory with the concept of dynamical energy systems theory allows us to hypothesize that all dynamical systems (i.e. from cells –> tissues –> organs) store information and energy to various degrees. Thus, all cells have “memory” through feedback loops.  As stated in the article, “The systemic memory mechanism has been applied to a variety of controversial and seemingly anomalous observations in complementary and alternative medicine, including homoeopathy. It also makes new predictions. One prediction is that sensitive recipients of transplanted organs can experience aspects of the donor’s personal history stored in the transplanted tissues”. 

Now obviously this isn’t a complete explanation. Even if cells had feedback loops and memories, this does not explain how someone could share real, tangible memories with their donor, but it could explain instances of, for example, a meat eater no longer being able to eat meat. I believe a complete mechanistic explanation will need to incorporate the DNA of the donor being placed into the recipient, especially if it holds true that memories can be passed on through DNA.

A vitalistic explanation of this phenomena could be that the recipient is receiving a piece of the soul of the person who gave them their organ. If soul and mind are connected, then soul and personality could be as well, and this would explain why part of the personality is passed on. I, however, do not believe this is the case, as I believe if there is such thing as a soul, it is completely intertwined with the mind of the person, and thus when the mind/consciousness dies, the soul moves on instead of lingering with remaining living cells.

What do you all think about these different ways of explaining the phenomena? Do you believe the phenomena is real at all?

-Elise

These articles present  ideas about consciousness being derived from microtubules in neurons which act as sites of quantum processing, but I am hesitant to believe these theories even if other phenomenon, like bird navigation and photosynthesis, have been connected to other quantum explanations. Supposedly, the quantum information can return to the universe at a person’s death, but also return to the body once it has been resuscitated explaining NDEs. The idea is that this quantum information can exist outside of the body, perhaps indefinitely, as a soul which I think is an odd way of conceptualizing the soul. I think  this demonstrates some of the same concerns we have discussed in class involving how to define something like the soul and consciousness.

I am not really familiar with quantum physics and so that does keep me from completely understanding the theories presented. There are some things that occur at the quantum level which do not follow the same rules of understanding we have for our everyday world, and a soul is something that is not readily observed. I think to some extent it is just trying to equate two things that are hard to understand and explain in terms of what we normally observe in everyday life.

I don’t understand why things like the soul cannot be discussed and accepted as something separate and outside of science. There is a certain preoccupation with justifying beliefs using accepted venues and vocabulary where science is seen as the greatest authority and justification. However, I think  sometimes that by trying to prove something through science it can alter the meaning or essence of a concept especially for something like the soul.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/can-science-explain-the-s_b_675107.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/28/soul-after-death-hameroff-penrose_n_2034711.html

After the discussion and lecture on Friday, I feel obligated to reconsider some of my view of Near Death Experiences. Initially, I saw the Reverend as a biased source, using NDE’s to promote his religion over others, but as the lecture went on, I saw him as a man who was struggling to give voice to a section of the population that longs for some confirmation of their collective experience.

The stories that Reverend Price brought forth were astounding, and although I did not believe many of them, I developed a new understanding of the importance of NDE’s. For example, I cannot believe the stories about men and women who have had NDE’s also having supernatural powers, such as draining IPhone batteries, or diagnosing diseases with a 100% success rate. However, I can believe in NDE’s being such powerful experiences that they give men and women new hope and drive to thrive in our chaotic modern society. I was moved by the Reverend’s story about the boy who was struck with lightning, and who was so affected that he did not speak for over a years before the Reverand himself asked him about his experience. The boy described Angels standing over him, and guarding him from the lightning. I think these are wonderful visions that are further evidence of the link between our brain and religion. Our brain is able to create images and visions that coincide with the beliefs we hold most dear. In Reverend Price’s discussions with non-Christian experiencers of NDE’s many of them stated they had seen their father; or the person that was most loving in their family. Our brain takes what we hold closest to our hearts, and uses those sentiments in our most dire moments, creating visions of parents, Angels, or psychedelic butterfly rides.

I believe there is a link between the charismatic healer phenomenon of Greatrakes, Mesmer, Tribal Shamans, and the lady who was endowed with the ability to diagnose any disease or malady. If you confidently suggest an explanation or cure, you are exerting incredible influence on whomever is suffering from the affliction. I believe the pastor was influenced by the woman’s suggestion of his knee infection, perhaps even more than most, due to his firm belief in NDE’s.

I felt that the pastors use of the Gallup poll of the 1980’s was a bit misleading, as it actually recorded how many Americans had come very extremely to death. It was not asking whether they had experienced an NDE, which is a multistep event, (a tunnel, an out of body experience, a bright light, a life review, an understanding that it is not yet their time, and a return to the body). I cannot disprove any of the Reverend’s stories, nor explain them mechanistically using the physical laws of our universe, thus they lie in the vitalistic realm of “nonsense”. They are unbelievable and often times nonsensical; however, they are so widespread and consistent in nature that it would be foolish to deny them completely. I will satisfy myself with the knowledge that human power of belief far outstretches the limits of modern science, and therefore should not yet be understood mechanistically. These experiences are life defining for men and women across the world, and should be given the due respect that the Reverand has attributed them. Many of these people are just looking for someone to speak with, who can partially understand what they went through, and how significant it was to their life.

Snake handling pastors root their practice in the bible. These pastors believe that God will protect them from any attempt the snake makes to harm them while handling, if they are right and just.

It is interesting to me how stringently these pastors adhere to their beliefs. They seem to accept most other modern technologies, all medical equipment and treatment and intervention included. Yet the pastor who recently died from a snake bite during a sermon, refused medical treatment and instead went home to die.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/23/cody-coots-snake-salvation_n_4844002.html

The mechanistic explanation for his death: A snake, a naturally predatory animal, did what any snake is biologically oriented to do: attack another animal. The pastor died because he did not receive antivenom, which cancels the deadly properties of rattlesnake venom.

The vitalistic explanation, however, is that God saw some transgression in the pastor’s life, and ceased to protect him from the snake. Where there had previously been an intangible force field of sorts between the snake and the pastor, there was none at that point, and the snake bit him. The pastor died because in order for his soul to be saved down the line, he had to face his punishment without intervention. In this case, God dictates death, and medical intervention is preventing a natural occurrence.

Why is it that the pastor’s son is undeterred from handling snakes after his father’s death? (See news article below)

How does the news article by a christian source differ from a news article by a secular source? Does one seem to lean more towards the vitalistic or mechanistic?

Would it conflict with the pastor’s beliefs for him to seek medical treatment?

http://www.christianpost.com/news/snake-salvation-church-to-continue-snake-handling-after-pastor-coots-death-from-bite-son-takes-over-115068/

Andreas Vesalsius was born in 1514 and died in 1564. He was born in Brabant (now part of southern Belgium). He began his schooling in Brabant at Catholic University of Leuven (1529-1533)  and for the next three years afterward studied medicine at the University of Paris in France. He got his bachelor of medicine degree back at the Catholic University of Leuven. He got his M.D. at the University of Padua in Italy, which had a strong background on dissection, one of Velsalsius’s biggest interests. He did some work at the University of Bologna in Italy in which he performed his own dissections, studied anatomy, and studied ancient works. He wrote the first textbook on human anatomy while doing this work and realizing the faults in Galen’s theories of human anatomy. He got the artwork for the text done in Venice and published it in Switzerland in 1543. He then went to Mainz to present his book to the Holy Roman Emperor, who not only approved, but appointed him the physician of his household. He spent many years in Brussels with his wife while making a lot of money with his great practitioning career, and then moved to Spain after the Holy Roman emperor made him a count and promised a lifetime pension. He made a pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and stopped at Venice and Cyprus along the way. He really lived and traveled throughout many places!

His biggest contribution to the history of medicine was revolutionizing the practice of medicine through his very detailed and thorough work in human anatomy and writing and illustrating the very first textbook in human anatomy. Part of the reason this work was so revolutionary was that it questioned the authoritative texts on human anatomy written by Galen, and provided much more accurate information.

All of this information I got from Britannica, which, through my critical judgement, I believe to be a reliable source.

Put the images into this blog and include a link to the web page from which you obtained the image – http://svapicsandmags.com/2011/10/16/sk-sk-sk-skeletons/

I believe I have come across the same CBS news article that Elise found in class:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hypnosis-no-anesthetic-for-mans-surgery/

Alex Lenkei not only used hypnosis for a hernia surgery in 1996, but also an 83-minute hand surgery in 2008. He claims to have been aware throughout the entire process along with “tugging and pulling” sensations, but felt no pain. A more recent article from the U.K. in 2010 also addresses this alternative to anesthesia, which is apparently called “hypnosedation.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1269903/Would-knife-hypnotist-numb-pain.html

The article makes it sound like an appealing option for individuals for whom anesthesia gives severe and unwelcome side effects and gives a very simplified version for the concept of pain.

A surprising number of cases have utilized hypnosedation, with 5,000 being cited in a Belgian hospital. For individuals who have adverse reactions to traditionally trusted anesthesia, it could be a viable last resort. These sensationalized news pieces for the general public are hardly official clinical trials that can prove the efficacy of the procedure and the very idea still begs the question as to whether or not all individuals can be susceptible to the hypnosis, and what exactly are the criteria for a hypnotist to be qualified to assist in a medical procedure. It seems to require a sense of faith and absence of skepticism, of which everyone should have a healthy dose; otherwise, it could potentially cause a nocebo effect.

There is an article that supports the use and advantages of hypnosedation in thyroid and parathyroid procedures. Despite my own skepticism, I would like to believe in this possible alternative. Monks are famous for their control over mechanisms such as body temperature and pulse, it may not be too far-fetched for a hypnotist to help guide an individual to temporarily separate themselves from the sensation of pain.

In the Greatrakes article, he addresses various criticisms and questions asked of him. One question posed was “why some are cured and not all, and if this work were of God all would be cured?”, to which he answers that “God may please to make use of such means by [him] as shall operate according to the disposition of the Patient; and therefore cannot be expected to be like effectual in all” (Greatrakes 31). He is also asked to explain “why some are cured at once coming and not all; and why the pains should flye immediately out of some, and take such ambages in others…” (Greatrakes 31). He offers that if those questions “could have a plain and rational account given them, then would there be no reason to account them strange” (Greatrakes 32). What do you make of these explanations? Say you were back in the 17th century and found yourself ill; would you trust in his healing powers despite the lack of “scientific” backing in his explanations? Considering that Greatrakes was active during the Age of Enlightenment, do you think that his explanations using God as the ultimate answer holds to the skeptical (sometimes deistic) views that many prominent theologians of the time held when evaluating “traditional” modes of religious worship, doctrine, and socio-political structure?

“Memories can be passed down to later generations through genetic switches that allow offspring to inherit the experience of their ancestors, according to new research that may explain how phobias can develop.”

This article explores a study performed on rats that sought to investigate the ability for a species to inherit certain dispositions towards environmental compounds based off the isolated experiences of their parents:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10486479/Phobias-may-be-memories-passed-down-in-genes-from-ancestors.html

A link to the study itself:

http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/Fetcho/NBBjournalclub/manella.pdf

The study divided mice into two groups, for which each was measured the “odor-potential startle” (OPS) induced by either acetophenone or propanol, compounds for which mice have olfactory receptors. In addition, these groups were given “shock training” during administration of these compounds. Basically, it concludes that the offspring of mice that were conditioned to one of these compounds exhibited a more pronounced reaction (measured by OPS) to that compound, but not to the other.

The authors hypothesize that this phenomenon occurs via a mutation in a particular gene in the DNA that codes for the concerned sensory receptor, thus increasing the offspring’s sensitivity to it.

What this demonstrates conclusively, then, is that environmental stimuli can induce microevolutionary mutations in the quick span of a single generation, in what is a remarkable ability for a species to adapt to a changing environment. However, since the study did not use control groups that were subject to a compound but not to shock training, we cannot conclude to what extent fear was constitutive of the offspring’s reaction to the stimuli.

In light of this, the quote from the news article seems overly optimistic and incorrectly translates the results of the study. Memory itself is a very difficult concept, epistemologically. Heightened perception of an environmental stimulus may be indicative of a sort of trauma, but this is not provable because of the lack of control groups in the study.

Is this indicative of a larger problem of sensational journalism on the part of those responsible for creating publicly digestible presentations of scientific research? Is there indeed something in this study that vindicates the journalist?

Near-death experiences observed and studied today are interesting to me not just because of what they tell us about the individuals who have these experiences, but because of the light they potentially shed on older historical accounts of mystical experiences in general.  For instance, in a class I took last semester with Professor Parsons, we studied a book written by the 16^th century Spanish Saint, Teresa of Avila.  In the book, Saint Teresa repeatedly mentions that when a holy person reaches the level of contemplation that allows for contact with the divine, that person often appears to be dead—that is, their bodily senses no longer seem to be picking up information from the outside world.  Many other accounts like this exist throughout history and across many different religious traditions, such as Buddhist monks who enter so deep into meditation that they no longer have a perceivable pulse and indeed appear dead to onlookers.  Similarly, ascetics of various religious traditions often undergo means of self-mortification for the purpose of inducing an “ego-death,” so as to give life to a higher self that is more in touch with the divine.  Perhaps in such cases, even when the person is not physiologically near death, he or she may be psychologically near death, which ultimately amounts to the same response.  In other words, it may be possible to self-induce NDEs by making the mind believe that the ego—biologically the most important part of the psyche, and therefore the most crucial to physiological survival—is at the brink of death, thus tricking the mind into a perceived imminence of bodily death.  Is it possible that the religious experiences of many mystics have actually been NDEs that were self-induced through similar means?  How much religious wisdom can be traced back in some way to an NDE?