Sadly, Sheldon is unable to understand that the clicks from the speakers are used to measure the EEG of her inner brainstem function, and that at 11:25, it stopped receiving signals from the brainstem. Let’s see if I’m luckier with you.
11;05 - Cardiac arrest is not brain death., Nothing important here. People are resuscitated from Cardiopulmonary infarction all the time. Brain stem weakened, (Nothing here.)
11:25 Core body temp drops, (So what.) (Clicks no longer elicited a response. ZERO BRAIN ACTIVITY.) The machine was turned off
Huston! We have a problem.
"This brings us to a discussion of the parameters of these 100-decibal clicking sounds (I TOLD YOU THIS PAPER ADDRESSES THE PREVIOUS RESEARCH.) 100-decibals is very loud, as loud as an orchestra. The clicking sounds were applied at a rate of 11.3 clicks per second.
Since late in the 1970’s various parts of the BAEP waveform have been used and studied intensively as a measure of the absence of consciousness and depth of anesthesia. At the time of Reynold’s operation, The BAEP was evaluated manually *** a technique that even in the hands of experts, is now known to be prone to error.*** (Schneider 2003), Moreover, there is considerable interpersonal variability in BAEP interpretation, and isolated forearm studies show that it does not always indicate a loss of consciousness (Loveman, 2001). This is the reason why ‘The American Society of Anesthesiologists’ (ASA) issued a practice advisory during 2006 in which they advised against sole reliance" (ON THE MACHINE THAT WAS TURNED OFF) "on a single electronic measure of awareness such as BAEP. (ASA 2006).
Why don’t you do your own reading and stop citing the same stuff? I told you that this paper as well as many other papers, are, IN FACT, responses made to the assertions in the original studies.,
An indispensable requisite of the scientific method, and of what we accept or reject as knowledge, truth, valid, real, etc, is INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION The original study must sustain critical inquiry, In this case, the original study can not stand against critical inquiry. Subsequent studies do not support the findings in the original study. In fact, the ASA has implemented procedures so that the same errors do not occur again.
There is no reason at all to believe the findings of the original study… NONE.
1 Like
It never said brain stem function ceased, as you had claimed, only that it slowed, it said brain wave activity was absent, and brain stem function can continue even when no brain wave activity is recorded. Your link also very specifically said she was not brain dead, I quoted it, so why you have chosen to lie, and use ad hominem now only you can know?
Here is the quote again:
On page 48 I read this:
" Pam stated that she was vividly able to
see Dr. Spetzler use the bone saw to make an
incision in her scalp, along with overhearing
the nurse say that the vein on her left side
was too small so she would need to use the
vein on the right. One interesting thing about
*this is that, **although technically
Pam was not brain dead yet.
and was only under general*
anesthesia at this point, her eyes were taped
shut and she had speakers in her ears
delivering clicking sounds to measure her
brainstem activity (Greyson, 2009; 2010;
Holden, 2006; Sabom, 1998)."
You seem keen to ignore this fact from your own citation, I shan’t even feign surprise that you’re compounding that dishonesty by using ad hominem. You also of course ignored the fact that her claims are anecdotal anyway, as I suspect you know this means they cannot be supported by any objective evidence, and so support no objective conclusion.
Well, you’re suggesting that a brain that is cool, emits no measurable activity, has no blood flow, and is drained of blood, could still produce undetectable brainstem activity. Maybe you should try incinerating it to see if the brainstem activity finally ceases.
Anyway, I never said that these experiences took place while Pam was in this state; this is one of the points I’m researching.
And I’m sure you’re aware that not everyone in science, including neurologists, interprets it the same way you do, right?
Nope, I simply read your own link, and quoted it verbatim, please don’t make up claims and assign them to me.
I simply quoted your own link. As you claimed it indicated she was brain dead, and the link specifically says she was not.
I have not interpreted anything, merely noted the facts, if you think a conclusions is justified state plainly what you think that is, and why you think it is justified? What individual scientists think or believe is irrelevant, it’s what they can validate using the methods of science that matters. Unless one is using the title scientist as an appeal to authority fallacy.
Should I feign surprise that you didn’t bother addressing these facts even now?
1 Like
He just does not get it! INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION is essential for anything we accept as knowledge/true.
2 Likes
He has magic mun, would you give that up? Sadly all the evidence suggests it is a delusion, but it makes him happy to think he among countless billions of evolved apes, has found the hidden esoteric truth behind reality, and path to an eternity of bliss with a deity.
You can’t dent the closed mind motivated by blind faith with objective reality. There is no belief I hold I would not discard if the objective evidence demanded it, whereas it is clear @JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU would need a deity to manifest itself and tell him it didn’t exist to make a dent in his unevidenced superstition.
No, your interpretation of the evidence is that this is an illusion, but there are neuroscientists who believe otherwise.
They’re not mutually exclusive, you might learn that if you learn to be open minded and objective.
Appeal to authority fallacy. Oh dear…
Oh yes, they are different. Evidence is one thing, but your interpretation of it could be wrong.
I’m not telling you to believe anything; I’m just pointing out that people more informed than you think otherwise.
I never said they weren’t different, I said they’re not mutually exclusive.
indeed, by I am not relying on my interpretation, you are the one eschewing objective evidence in favour of subjective bias, to form beliefs, not me.
I never said you were, you used an appeal to authority fallacy.
That was the appeal to authority fallacy yes, being better informed or more intelligent has nothing to do with subjective beliefs they may hold that are unevidenced, unfalsifiable, untestable and that have no explanatory powers. If you understood the fallacy you’d understand why this is the case, but you are only interested in ideas that you believe support your blind subjective adherence to this idea, hence you are happy to make irrational claims, and offer subjective opinions while appealing to the authority of the people who may hold those subjective opinions.
Science is not based on subjective opinions, so that scientist A believes X to be true, does not make X scientifically evidenced, and FYI scientist A could be Einstein or Sir Isaac Newton, the latter believed passionately in alchemy.
Yes, you assume that the brainstem continues to function when the brain is cold and the blood is drained, but there is no evidence to support that.
This is a subjective opinion.
No, I told you that other people interpret it differently than you, which is not a fallacy but a fact. I also mentioned that some of them know far more about this topic than you, which is another fact.
I assumed no such thing, you are lying again. I quoted your link that specifically said the patient was not brain dead and disputed your claim there was no brain stem activity based on that link, when the link said no such thing…and you were in fact subjectively interpreting something else to mean this, PLEASE STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT I HAVE SAID, use the quote function.
So you can objectively evidence a deity, or panpsychism? You are funny fair play.
Yes.
Straw man fallacy, since that was not remotely what I explained.
Sir Isaac Newton knew far more than alchemy than you I imagine, are you happy then to defer to his expertise and knowledge, and state you believe alchemy to have merit, based on this appeal to authority fallacy?
I note you dishonestly skirt passed the fact that those subjective opinions you claim neuroscientists hold, ad in a minority and not supported by any objective evidence, quell surprise, you are so dishonest in debate it isn’t real, and I am a man with a prodigious amount of patience, but it is wearing a little think even for me.
You have demonstrated nothing. I simply stated two facts, and you claimed it was a fallacy, but they are just two facts.
Again, no. This is not supported by an interpretation of this evidence
Essentially, we are debating something that even medical experts don’t agree on: the definition of death.
This is an idea in your head.
Try stamping your foot, see if that makes your appeal to authority fallacy go away.
Well I think calling your bare claims facts is a stretch, but hey ho, they amounted to an appeal to authority fallacy though either way. I am not explaining it to you anymore though, time to stop beating the dead donkey, he is an ex donkey, he has ceased to be etc etc…
Oh you do in fact now have objective evidence for panpsychism, and that there is a majority consensus among neurologists that it has merit? I’d be miffed you kept this to yourself all this time, but I am all agog with excitement, off you go then…comedy fucking gold…
No we are debating your lie that your link claimed there was no brains stem activity, and it said no such thing, we are debating your lie that I “didn’t understand” your link when I said there was brain stem activity, when I had in fact quoted your link specifically stating the patient was “not brain dead”.
FYI medical science has specific criteria to define brain death, and clinical death, so this is simply comedy gold.
Correct, though of course it is not JUST an idea in my head, since anyone can read your posts here, and see the objective evidence.
Now… loud fanfare, please present your objective evidence for panpsychism or a deity, otherwise that lie is going to soak up a lot of bandwidth on here, you have been warned.
I told you, it’s qualia.
How does the existence of subjective experience objectively evidence panpsychism? I see you skipped the objective evidence for your main claim that a deity exists? I am already scrolling back to your lie above, be warned. I have to train now, when I get back, bwooohahahaha!!!
Just curious, how should I say that some neuroscientists don’t think like you without producing a fallacy?
We are not talking about panpsychism.
Again, this is an interpretation of the events presented in the paper, which suggest that the stem has ceased. You interpreted it as incorrect.