Near-death experiences and consciousness

That's totally misleading.If that figure applies to the populas, then that assumes 100% have been dead for a short while. What is the percentage of people who have been brain dead? For example 15% of the populas. Then figure out the percentage of the people who were brain dead, of which experienced the event. Then, all you can conclude logically, is that a small percentage of those who have died, experienced the inexplicable event. You can infact not infer anything about the populas as a whole.For all you know, if we all died for ten minutes, 80% of us could remember the death period, and I would say the 20% is accounted for, via the lack of ability witin some brains. As surely as only some can pass an IQ test at 100, so would this be in this scenario, posssibly, IMHO. The fact is that if consciousness did survive the brain, then that would mean that thoughts outside of the brain during brain death, would not depend on the brain, and therefore your brain would not necessarily remember the death-period, but rather it might just remember segments, or incoherency, or nothing.It could also be a possibility that those who have been able to remember, were meant to remember. Don't forget, his quote mentioned the ability of enhanced memory during death, which the brain doesn't have during life.These variables are all hypothetically valid in an area of uncertainty, IMHO.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-29-2005 01:26 PM

I don't trust statistics.My worry here is the major term.If the conclusion refers to every member of the major term, then the premise must also refer to every member.In this case, surely we come close to the illicit process, in that Aracnophilia is saying something about the major term, after looking at some members of that term.If we had 20% of Brits that were chess players, does that mean 20% of the population are chess players? (Paul K's comment is very relevant to this point aswell).I don't see statistics as all that conclusive. You can put spin on them, and basically make them mean anything you want them to and not know that you are even doing anything wrong. I also dislike analogies because of their silent implications that are really biased.