Author
|
Topic: Near-death experiences and consciousness
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
Message 91 of 145 (264516)
11-30-2005 3:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 89 by jar 11-30-2005 3:16 PM
|
|
Re: what misdirection?
Do you believe a person's consciousness or a form of consciousness can exist without the brain then? Same question. Soul equals permanent consciousness.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 89 by jar, posted 11-30-2005 3:16 PM | | jar has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 11-30-2005 3:27 PM | | randman has not replied | | Message 95 by jar, posted 11-30-2005 3:32 PM | | randman has replied |
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
Message 99 of 145 (264537)
11-30-2005 4:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 95 by jar 11-30-2005 3:32 PM
|
|
Re: what misdirection?
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
This message is a reply to: | | Message 95 by jar, posted 11-30-2005 3:32 PM | | jar has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 100 by jar, posted 11-30-2005 4:33 PM | | randman has replied |
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
Message 103 of 145 (264605)
11-30-2005 10:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 100 by jar 11-30-2005 4:33 PM
|
|
Re: what misdirection?
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...
This message is a reply to: | | Message 100 by jar, posted 11-30-2005 4:33 PM | | jar has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 104 by jar, posted 11-30-2005 10:32 PM | | randman has replied |
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
Message 105 of 145 (264611)
11-30-2005 10:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 104 by jar 11-30-2005 10:32 PM
|
|
Re: what misdirection?
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
This message is a reply to: | | Message 104 by jar, posted 11-30-2005 10:32 PM | | jar has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 106 by jar, posted 11-30-2005 10:58 PM | | randman has replied |
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
Message 107 of 145 (264616)
11-30-2005 11:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 106 by jar 11-30-2005 10:58 PM
|
|
Re: what misdirection?
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?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 106 by jar, posted 11-30-2005 10:58 PM | | jar has replied |
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: what misdirection?
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.
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: Light and Death
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.
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: Light and Death
With something as controversial as this, yep!
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
I stand by the OP.
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.
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
Message 142 of 145 (269635)
12-15-2005 10:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 141 by Theodoric 12-14-2005 3:53 AM
|
|
Re: Peer reviewed
That it is published in a peer reviewed magazine does not make it any more true than anything else published. 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
This message is a reply to: | | Message 141 by Theodoric, posted 12-14-2005 3:53 AM | | Theodoric has not replied |
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
Message 144 of 145 (269643)
12-15-2005 11:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 143 by NosyNed 12-15-2005 10:54 AM
|
|
Re: Peer reviewed
I suppose the added comments are superfluous. Will edit them out.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 143 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2005 10:54 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|