I told you, it implies some fundamental properties in matter that allow its existence.
Thatâs just a subjective opinion, not objective evidence.
You donât get to decide what we talk about, you made a dishonest claim, one of many I grant you, but I called you on it, here:
You claimed that my assertion âyou are the one eschewing objective evidence in favour of subjective biasâ was a subjective opinion, which was when I asked you to offer objective evidence for a deity and panpsychist, two beliefs you are peddling without any objective evidence for either. As we can see, you then tried to pass of a subjective opinion as objective evidence, making it clear you donât understand the difference.
It is only your subjective opinion that one aspect of consciousness evidences panpsychism. So I was not offering a subjective opinion when I said you eschewed objective evidence in favour of subjective opinion, and you also believe in a deity, I note no attempt to objectively evidnece that at all. Again the dishonesty is palpable.
The paper stated explicitly that she was not brain dead, I have quoted it innumerable times, are you this desperate to cling to your subjective interpretation, even when the claims of the patient render it moot, as they are anecdotal, you also never mentioned this being your subjective interpretation of the paper you linked, you claimed the paper said there was no brain stem activity, suspiciously without a quote, and when you refused at my behest to quote it saying this, I scoured the paper and could see no such claim had been made, it merely said no brain wave activity was present and that brain stem activity had slowed, and that it said unequivocally that the patient was not brain dead. Worse still, you then falsely accused me of making a subjective interpretation, despite me quoting your link verbatim, fuck me.
No, this is called causality.
The clicks from the speakers in her ears no longer elicited a response and there was zero brain wave activity.
You interpret it as there still being brain stem activity. Fine, but thatâs not my interpretation.
the head of the operating table was tilted up, the cardiopulmonary bypass machine was turned off, and the blood was drained from Pamâs body like oil from a car
You assume there is still a possibility of brain stem activity without blood flow to the brain. Fine, but thatâs not my interpretation.
The paperâŚ
One interesting thing about this is that, although technically Pam was not brain dead yet
You are obsessed with the idea of brain death, but Iâm telling you this is a debate that even experts have yet to resolve.
That is called a subjective claim, it need not be a fundamental property in all matter, it might only be true in very specific cases, say when billions of years of evolution produces functioning brains. You really donât seem to understand the difference between a subjective claim and objective evidence.
Nope this is till a lie, I merely read and then quoted the paper you linked.
Do I assume this? I think not, I have assumed nothing.
" * Brain activity loss
When blood flow to the brain stops, consciousness is lost within 4 to 10 seconds, and an electroencephalogram (EEG) becomes isoelectric after 10 to 30 seconds.
- Brain cell damage
Brain cells are particularly vulnerable to damage when thereâs no blood flow because they lack energy stores. Cellular injury can begin within minutes, and permanent brain damage can occur if thereâs no prompt intervention.
- Brain cell death
Brain cells die slowly over many hours or even days after a person dies.
Brain stem death
Brain stem death is the final endpoint of extreme brain injury. Once the brain stem has permanently stopped functioning, thereâs no way to reverse it.
Confirming death is more complex than it used to be because itâs possible to keep the heart beating after the brain stem has stopped functioning."
- So someone made some anecdotal claims. about experiences under anaesthetic, while undergoing surgery.
- Brain stem activity was halted using careful procedure.
- the anecdotal claims coincide with a point during the procedure when your link says âshe was not brain deadâ.
The difference between brain death and what this procedure describes is the word permanent, the claims remain anecdotal and unprovable.
LINK Citation can be obtained in the link.
For clarity, the patients claims remain anecdotal of course. As I said many tedious weeks ago, if this amounted to scientific evidence for an afterlife (the thread topic you originally posted this story in) then it is absurd to imagine weâd not already know this, as this case is a very old one.
I told you many many tedious hours ago that this story did not support any conclusion, so why youâre telling me this now is baffling.
the link literally say:
yetâŚ
My point is simple: the brainstem probably stopped when all the blood was drained from the brain and it was cold.
Do whatever you want with it, but this is a perfectly reasonable assumption. As for the rest, Iâm not sure what youâre arguing about.
I was interested in the saw, not the sounds; thatâs something you brought up. 
I know what it literally says, Iâve been correcting your misrepresentations of it for days.
Thatâs not your point though is it, you posted this decades old anecdotal story in a thread about âwhat happens after we dieâ would you like a link?
âCritics say that the amount of time during which Reynolds was âflatlinedâ is generally misrepresented, and suggest that her NDE occurred under general anesthesia when the brain was still active, hours before Reynolds underwent hypothermic cardiac arrest.â
"Anesthesiologist Gerald Woerlee analyzed the case, and concluded that Reynoldsâ ability to perceive events during her surgery was a result of âanesthesia awarenessâ
"According to the psychologist Chris French, who served as editor in chief of The Skeptic magazine:
Woerlee, an anesthesiologist with many years of clinical experience, has considered this case in detail and remains unconvinced of the need for a paranormal explanation⌠[He] draws attention to the fact that Reynolds could only give a report of her experience some time after she recovered from the anesthetic as she was still intubated when she regained consciousness. This would provide some opportunity for her to associate and elaborate upon the sensations she had experienced during the operation with her existing knowledge and expectations. The fact that she described the small pneumatic saw used in the operation also does not impress Woerlee. As he points out, the saw sounds like and, to some extent, looks like the pneumatic drills used by dentists."
I could probably take a stab at describing one of those saws right now, the patient might have see one in any number of tv programmes, or films for example.
if someone wants to believe there is an afterlife these types of stories are catnip to them, but there is no objective evidence for anything supernatural here, or that consciousness can exist without a brain, just an anecdotal story we canât accurately verify, and a whole host of subjective assumptions.
This is a perfect example of double standards. There is no evidence of anything here, and it does not explain how the events occurred. He is not reproducing the events in a controlled environment to show that they can be replicated according to his predictions. He hasnât conducted tests with other patients to demonstrate when and how an experience happens or when they are able to describe medical equipment. He provides no evidence to support that his explanation is real. Instead, he offers a vague explanation and then leaves all the important questions unanswered. And yet, you accept it.
In short, it is NO EXPLANATION at all.
Iâm not going to buy into your âscience of gapsâ that explains nothing. This is not how science works, and itâs certainly not how reality works.
The evidence is simple: if I ask you how she was able to identify it, and then I ask you where your evidence is⌠well, we all know the answer.
Thatâs rather the point.
Thatâs usually the case when a dearth of objective evidence does not support any rational explanation.
He is not claiming that, the point is that anecdotal claims canât be objectively verified, heâs just pointing there are alternative explanations that we know are possible.
I accept that nothing in the anecdote represents objective evidence for any supernatural or paranormal event. No one needs to offer a counter explanation, the burden of proof is on the claim. No one needs to claim natural explanations exist and are possible, we already know this to be axiomatically true, we have no objective evidence anything supernatural is possible, this makes the former more plausible than the latter. I am sorry this fact still bunches your panties, but thatâs your problem.
There is one question here more important than all the others, does this anecdote warrant any rational conclusion about the supernatural, or an afterlife, and the answer is clearly no.
There could be any number of answers, all of them more plausible than unevidenced magic.
- She might have seen one before.
- She might have seen one on tv or in a film.
- She might have been coached and this all be chicanery.
- She might have seen one and forgotten all about it, then recalled it. Such recollection may seem spectacular, but are not entirely uncommon.
Ultimately it doesnât matter, as I explained many many tedious hours ago, if we have something we canât explain, that is all we have, you canât rationally base conclusions on not knowing or not being able to explain, what happened.
This is why it is important when testing supernatural claims to guarantee that it was impossible for the test subject to have gotten the information ahead of time (through mundane means, requiring them to use supernatural means to preform the feat).
Failure to do this suggests credulity at best, but more likely a scam, imo.
1 Like
- She might never have seen oneâŚ
Nobody has provided any evidence that this information could have reached her. All we have are opinions and statements like âshe might haveâŚâ. This is a case of the argument from ignorance, relying on gaps in knowledge. Opinions without evidence.
That isnât how the game is played, you need to ENSURE IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE through mundane means. It is the only way to be sure it isnât a scam/mistake/hoax/whatever. It can be done; it is just the scammers arenât interested in it (for obvious reasons).
2 Likes
Since no one has claimed this, why would they need to? Theyâre only pointing out that those options are as @Nyarlathotep says, mundanely possibile, unlike a supernatural event, which no one can demonstrate is objectively possible. Youâre error hinges on the epistemological difference between belief, which is a claim, and disbelief of a claim, which is not a claim.
Indeed, but the might haves can all be easily evidenced as possible on one side, unlike the supernatural side,
Not knowing how something happened naturally, is not evidence it required the supernatural, this is an error in reasoning humans have been making for countless millennia.
Well done youâre improving, but it is you who is using this fallacy here, I can quote exactly where you did it if you want?
Aw what the hell, I shanât be churlish, here it is:
You see your claim is irrational, since in logic nothing is disproved because it hasnât been proved, and since we already know those options are easily possible, they are axiomatically more probable than something that has never been evidenced as possible. One need not form a conclusion or hold a belief here, only point this out, and thus rationally disbelieve the idea it was a supernatural event.
2 Likes
This is why it is important when testing supernatural claims to guarantee that it was impossible for the test subject to have gotten the information ahead of time (through mundane means, requiring them to use supernatural means to preform the feat).
Failure to do this suggests credulity at best, but more likely a scam, imo.
1 Like
for sure; that is the way to test these claims