Near-death experiences and consciousness

Do you believe a person's consciousness or a form of consciousness can exist without the brain then?Same question. Soul equals permanent consciousness.

Afraid to answer the question?Not to be petty, but it really has everything to do with the thread.This message has been edited by randman, 11-30-2005 04:17 PM

Actually, it's just not about the Lancet article. That's just one article. It's about the idea. The fact you reject the idea so staunchly, imo, is surprising if you really believe in the existence of the soul, or consciousness independent of the body.It's telling, imo, that you don't want to settle the issue by answering a simple question.But what is really odd is that you seem to deny that the doctor is even making these claims. At least WK here, even though he disagrees with the doctor, is willing to admit Van Pommel makes the claim of consciousness functioning while the brain is not.Thus far, you have not even been willing to acknowledge that fact, and it is an uncontestable fact that this is what the doctor claims.Very odd on your part, unless, well...

So far, you've been proven wrong, jar. You claimed the Lancet article did not make the claim of consciousness occuring without brain activity, but it does make that claim.Do you admit that or not?Also, I think it's clear why you are reluctant to admit whether you believe the soul exists.This message has been edited by randman, 11-30-2005 10:47 PM

It explicitly says more study is needed BECAUSE NDEs occur when the BRAIN IS NOT FUNCTIONING.Van Pimmel himself repeats that assertation in the Lancet article, the Ode piece, and the on-line articles I linked to. I provided 3 cooroborations of his claims, and yet you deny he is even making the claim.What gives jar?

You can argue their claim EEGs are flat is based on insufficient evidence. Fine. I disagree, but at least we're debating within the realm of reality in terms of what the author is claiming.What one cannot reasonably argue is what jar claims, which is that the article never even makes those claims.

WK, that links doesn't open to the book, and I cannot find it. Obviously, Van Pommel feels the account is an excellent example of veridical perception while the brain is not active as details about the surgery were included.You think otherwise, but it appears without having the book on hand, it's hard to independently verify that.The editors at Lancet, by the way, did not ask Van Pommel to correct this claim in the article.

With something as controversial as this, yep!

As far as I am concerned, I think the article is correct in it's claim, and that there is plenty of evidence for a reasonable person to conclude consciousness is likely to exist outside of the brain.You choose to reject that because you think the evidence is anecdotal, and that's fine except even anecdotal evidence is evidence for this type of query. If you want to call it unscientific, I really don't care because I have seen mainstream scientists advance very speculative data, and even false data, as evidence over and over again when it suits them.I lost interest in this thread because it was taking pages for jar to even admit that Van Lommel was even claiming consciousness without brain activity, and that's what I have come to expect, a total stonewalling of basic facts, even simple facts like evidentiary claims.

Funny how peer-review is so important to you guys until someone publishes something you disagree with.This message has been edited by randman, 12-15-2005 11:11 AM

I suppose the added comments are superfluous. Will edit them out.