ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags nde , near death experience

Reply
Old 20th April 2006, 01:57 PM   #81
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Because hypnogogic hallucinations, REM, REM intrusion and arousals before and after REM occurs in ALL human beings unless they are taking or are being given drugs which suppress REM or have untreated conditions which affect REM.
Then, we are back to Pam Reynolds: How can she have REM - and therefore NDE, if her brain has stopped working?

You can't have it both ways, you know.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
If the rationale covers almost all people, it covers darn well near 100% of all NDErs, a smaller subset of all people. It doesn't require the non-parsimonious addition of complicating factors. It is elegant in its simplicity and makes perfect sense.
Steve, you simply can't be honest for two seconds. You know perfectly well that the explanations so far for NDEs are as parsimonious as they come. None of the factors are complicating things - in fact, they explain the phenomenon well.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I am sorry you persist in either looking for a paranormal explanation
Where have I looked for a paranormal explanation?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
or, alternatively, subscribe to the reasons given by Blackmore et al. which at best are responsible for a small number of cases when their complicated explanations even exist.
Oh? Can you point to any of those examined by Blackmore et al which aren't covered by the explanations?
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2006, 04:24 PM   #82
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
Then, we are back to Pam Reynolds: How can she have REM - and therefore NDE, if her brain has stopped working?

You can't have it both ways, you know.
See post above by Mr.Hans for the answer. See also my reply to same.



Quote:
Steve, you simply can't be honest for two seconds. You know perfectly well that the explanations so far for NDEs are as parsimonious as they come. None of the factors are complicating things - in fact, they explain the phenomenon well.
No they're not. I guess you haven't read Blackmore et al or the
articles and debates attempting to refute them. They are anything but parsimonious. The work of these Kentucky neurologists offers a much more parsimonious scenario. But, of course, you are free to have any opinion you want.



Quote:
Where have I looked for a paranormal explanation?
If you insist that Pam Reynolds had her NDE during the nadir of her
experience then that is the only possibility. From your bickering and
constant review of this it looks like you are batting for this.



Quote:
Oh? Can you point to any of those examined by Blackmore et al which aren't covered by the explanations?
I don't understand your question. If you are saying does she give REM intrusion/arousal system and hypnogogic or visual hallucinations as a primary cause in all cases, as I recall, no. She goes through the usual and myriad suspects and puts forth a litany of causes, each of which may apply to a very small or no number of people. I think I discussed this alreday above; it would be good if you learn to stop asking the same question a different way. The answer will be the same and you are getting boring.

Susan's website, www.susanblackmore.co.uk has all her papers listed but unfortunately as you will see when you visit there her several papers on NDEs are book chapters which I read in hard copy 3 or 4 years ago. I do not believe they are available online and I don't have them
anymore as I returned them to the library.

www.susanblackmore.co.uk/publicat.htm
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2006, 08:39 PM   #83
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
Here is a link (see below) to another account of Pam Reynolds’ case. I am quoting the first paragraph which is part of a much longer NDE account so you can skip down to it if you don't want to read the entire account although it contains some of other things we've been discussing here. It does not discuss the latest paper obviously, as this is from 1998.

Quote:

Stories of flat EEGs abound in the NDE lore, but only recently has Bruce actually heard of a verified one, and it is one of the best cases he has ever heard for survival evidence (Sabom, 1998). A team in Phoenix specializes in an extreme form of neurosurgery called hypothermic cardiac arrest that has been created to allow operation on aneurysms deep in the brain. A 35-year-old woman undertook this surgery. Her eyes were taped shut to prevent them from drying out. They put electrodes in the auditory section of the brainstem and put molded speakers in her ears which played a constant beep, a setup designed to gauge responsiveness in the brainstem. These speakers prevented her from hearing anything in the room besides the beeps. They cooled her body to 60 degrees, which lowered her metabolic rate enough so that the surgeons could operate for a long time deep in the brain. They then rerouted her blood from a femoral artery into a heart-pump, though they had to switch legs because the first vessel was too small, thereby prolonging the surgery. When the EEG was flat and the brainstem stopped responding, she was by most standard medical criteria dead. Blood flowed out into the heart-pump and back into the body. Next they shut off the pump and tilted the table up so that all the blood drained out of her brain. Only then was it safe to open her skull to clip off the aneurysm. The time of anesthetization in this procedure is about 90 minutes.
http://www.esalenctr.org/display/con...id=22&pgtype=1
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2006, 11:31 PM   #84
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
See post above by Mr.Hans for the answer. See also my reply to same.
You want it both ways, then.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
No they're not. I guess you haven't read Blackmore et al or the articles and debates attempting to refute them. They are anything but parsimonious. The work of these Kentucky neurologists offers a much more parsimonious scenario. But, of course, you are free to have any opinion you want.
You are not explaining why they aren't parsimonious. You merely repeat that they are.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
If you insist that Pam Reynolds had her NDE during the nadir of her experience then that is the only possibility. From your bickering and constant review of this it looks like you are batting for this.
I am not the one "batting" for a paranormal explanation here, Steve. All I am asking is for you to explain how she can have REM, when her brain is supposed to be non-functional.

You're the sleep expert here, Steve. Aren't you?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I don't understand your question. If you are saying does she give REM intrusion/arousal system and hypnogogic or visual hallucinations as a primary cause in all cases, as I recall, no. She goes through the usual and myriad suspects and puts forth a litany of causes, each of which may apply to a very small or no number of people. I think I discussed this alreday above; it would be good if you learn to stop asking the same question a different way. The answer will be the same and you are getting boring.
You did not give any example of an NDE that wasn't parsimoniously explained by Blackmore et al.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Susan's website, www.susanblackmore.co.uk has all her papers listed but unfortunately as you will see when you visit there her several papers on NDEs are book chapters which I read in hard copy 3 or 4 years ago. I do not believe they are available online and I don't have them anymore as I returned them to the library.

www.susanblackmore.co.uk/publicat.htm
So, you cannot just give one example of an NDE that wasn't parsimoniously explained by Blackmore et al.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
[size=3][font=Times New Roman]Here is a link (see below) to another account of Pam Reynolds’ case.
Do you agree with the account? That it gives a correct picture of what happened?
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2006, 03:47 AM   #85
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,324
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
If I had to speculate, it would be because about every person claiming to experience an NDE, even while unconscious, still has a functional brain. Reynold's MAY be the only NDEr without a functional brain during the period claimed for the NDE.
However, since nobody, including Pam, has any way of knowing when the NDE actually occurred, and she obviously had a functional brain at other times ........

Well, count me out ....

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2006, 05:52 AM   #86
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
However, since nobody, including Pam, has any way of knowing when the NDE actually occurred, and she obviously had a functional brain at other times ........

Well, count me out ....

Hans
Correct. There is no way to determine at what time she had her NDE.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2006, 06:05 AM   #87
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
What don't you understand about the term parsimonious? Maybe discussing this will help.

Last edited by SteveGrenard; 21st April 2006 at 06:08 AM.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2006, 06:06 AM   #88
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
It's parsomonious Claus because it depends on nothing other than all of our basic, normal internal physiology. It does not require external agents,it does not require the addition of pathology we cannot prove existed (e.g. hypoxia, which in fact could be proved did not exist), it does not require the ingestion or injection of hallucinogenic substances.

You say one cannot have it both ways. I am afraid this is incorrect. Of course you can have both ways, even three or four ways. While the ingestion of a a specific drug and the activation of its receptors in the brain may cause hallucinatory experiences, these authors are saying this action is not required to have a hallucination, that you can have it without the application. Take an example from mathematics:

1 + 1 = 2 I am sure you will agree. But let's see, 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.25 + 0.75 also equals 2. Which was the most parsimonious way of arriving at 2? The first one. But you can have the second way also. You can establish a similar example by establishing a route between two points on a map, the long way or the short or parsimonious way.

I don't recall all of Blackmore's reasons which she gave so don't ask me to quote her. I do recall, for example, that she resorted to drugs, hypoxemia and even the theory that endogenous production of endorphins could cause NDEs, all of which must be proven. gogic or visual hallucinations, REM and REM intrusions with arousals from sleep have been amply documented as a universal feature of human sleep/wake physiology in
countless sleep tests conducted every night. They are not even a theory or a hypothetical, they are a proven fact, the simplest and most parsimonous one yet. Everything else is supposition or, as one author has written, "bad neuroscience."

Last edited by SteveGrenard; 21st April 2006 at 06:09 AM.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2006, 11:00 AM   #89
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
It's parsomonious Claus because it depends on nothing other than all of our basic, normal internal physiology. It does not require external agents,it does not require the addition of pathology we cannot prove existed (e.g. hypoxia, which in fact could be proved did not exist), it does not require the ingestion or injection of hallucinogenic substances.
Your problem is that the best case for NDE - Pam Reynolds - invalidates the REM theory as being the correct one: Because Reynolds could not have NDEs because of REM - her brain didn't function when she was supposed to have NDE.

You can't ignore this, Steve, much as you like to.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
You say one cannot have it both ways. I am afraid this is incorrect. Of course you can have both ways, even three or four ways. While the ingestion of a a specific drug and the activation of its receptors in the brain may cause hallucinatory experiences, these authors are saying this action is not required to have a hallucination, that you can have it without the application. Take an example from mathematics:

1 + 1 = 2 I am sure you will agree. But let's see, 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.25 + 0.75 also equals 2. Which was the most parsimonious way of arriving at 2? The first one. But you can have the second way also. You can establish a similar example by establishing a route between two points on a map, the long way or the short or parsimonious way.
This has nothing to do with the concept of parsimony. You are confusing parsimony with method.

Tell me: Which is the more parsimonious:

1+1 = 2

2+0 = 2

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I don't recall all of Blackmore's reasons which she gave so don't ask me to quote her.
Your argument is unfounded, then.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I do recall, for example, that she resorted to drugs, hypoxemia and even the theory that endogenous production of endorphins could cause NDEs, all of which must be proven. gogic or visual hallucinations, REM and REM intrusions with arousals from sleep have been amply documented as a universal feature of human sleep/wake physiology in countless sleep tests conducted every night. They are not even a theory or a hypothetical, they are a proven fact, the simplest and most parsimonous one yet. Everything else is supposition or, as one author has written, "bad neuroscience."
What was the author's name? Can we see a source where (s)he calls Blackmore's work "bad neuroscience"?

Do you agree with the account you linked to? That it gives a correct picture of what happened?
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2006, 11:25 AM   #90
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
Your problem is that the best case for NDE - Pam Reynolds - invalidates the REM theory as being the correct one: Because Reynolds could not have NDEs because of REM - her brain didn't function when she was supposed to have NDE.



Tell me: Which is the more parsimonious:

1+1 = 2

2+0 = 2
You are correct. Your choice #2 is more parsimonious than #1. In my selection, #1 was more parsimonious than #2. If you are comparing the parsimony of formulas to each other, then the one which arrives at the solution in the simplest manner is the most parsimonious.



Quote:
Your argument is unfounded, then.
Your reasoning is specious. You fail to take into account that of my examples, a particular example was more parsimonious than the other.You can continue to simplify if you want.



Quote:
What was the author's name? Can we see a source where (s)he calls Blackmore's work "bad neuroscience"
The place where this is referred, in a more general way but which includes Blackmore's hypotheses as part of the well publicized overall cynico-skeptical refutation of NDEs is at:

http://home.comcast.net/~neardeath/n..._pages/80.html

I cited this account previously. You can read the entire document. This remark has also been repeated several times in studies and reviews in the Journal of Near Death studies which is now up to 24 volumes. I do not have time to go thrpough all of them to review your demand for the author of a single quote which has bene repeated by any number of different persons including in the above account. All of the articles in these 24 volumes are not online, only the TOCs of each issue so you can't find it this way anyway. If anyone wants to review the topics and studies published in this journal and the 80 or more NDE researchers in the U.S. alone, they are free to visit:

http://www.iands.org/pubs/jnds/index.php

Quote:
Do you agree with the account you linked to? That it gives a correct picture of what happened?
I have no reason to doubt the factual details of either the surgery, the procedure(s) employed or the patient's account of her near death experience. I like Mr. Hans' explanation of how this would be possible. In the past I have verified the procedure used, I have verified the center where the surgery happened and I have verified the existence of the neurosurgeon who did it as well as looked at the radiograph of the patient's basilar artery aneurysm. Neither the neurosurgeon or the center have ever refuted the account as given here.

Mr. Hans wrote:

Quote:
However, since nobody, including Pam, has any way of knowing when the NDE actually occurred, and she obviously had a functional brain at other times .......



If she did have her NDE/hallucination or whatever when her brain was cold there is a possibility the answer lies in the work of these authors who are on another track, discussing the requirement that certain quantum actions require extreme cold and could not occur in a warm brain. I hesitate to even offer this paper as an explanation, it's very hypothetical but I am putting it on the table anyway. Do I completely understand it? No. Maybe you can.


http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pdfs/Woolf1.pdf


I still like Mr. Hans' explanation as it is the most parsimonious. It fits also with the work of these Kentucky NDE researchers.

Last edited by SteveGrenard; 22nd April 2006 at 11:55 AM.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2006, 12:20 PM   #91
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
You are correct. Your choice #2 is more parsimonious than #1. In my selection, #1 was more parsimonious than #2. If you are comparing the parsimony of formulas to each other, then the one which arrives at the solution in the simplest manner is the most parsimonious.
But we are not working with "formulas" when it comes to NDEs. We are working with scientifically based explanations.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Your reasoning is specious. You fail to take into account that of my examples, a particular example was more parsimonious than the other.You can continue to simplify if you want.
What a bunch of hooey. You have admitted that you can't recall any of Blackmore's (et al) reasons, which means your argument is unfounded. Regardless of your verbal diarrhea.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
The place where this is referred, in a more general way but which includes Blackmore's hypotheses as part of the well publicized overall cynico-skeptical refutation of NDEs is at:

http://home.comcast.net/~neardeath/n..._pages/80.html

I cited this account previously. You can read the entire document. This remark has also been repeated several times in studies and reviews in the Journal of Near Death studies which is now up to 24 volumes. I do not have time to go thrpough all of them to review your demand for the author of a single quote which has bene repeated by any number of different persons including in the above account. All of the articles in these 24 volumes are not online, only the TOCs of each issue so you can't find it this way anyway. If anyone wants to review the topics and studies published in this journal and the 80 or more NDE researchers in the U.S. alone, they are free to visit:

http://www.iands.org/pubs/jnds/index.php

I have no reason to doubt the factual details of either the surgery, the procedure(s) employed or the patient's account of her near death experience. I like Mr. Hans' explanation of how this would be possible. In the past I have verified the procedure used, I have verified the center where the surgery happened and I have verified the existence of the neurosurgeon who did it as well as looked at the radiograph of the patient's basilar artery aneurysm. Neither the neurosurgeon or the center have ever refuted the account as given here.

Mr. Hans wrote:



If she did have her NDE/hallucination or whatever when her brain was cold there is a possibility the answer lies in the work of these authors who are on another track, discussing the requirement that certain quantum actions require extreme cold and could not occur in a warm brain. I hesitate to even offer this paper as an explanation, it's very hypothetical but I am putting it on the table anyway. Do I completely understand it? No. Maybe you can.


http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pdfs/Woolf1.pdf


I still like Mr. Hans' explanation as it is the most parsimonious. It fits also with the work of these Kentucky NDE researchers.
Here is what your Comcast link said about "bad neuroscience":

Quote:
Ed Kelly feels that the neurobiological work is actually very promising for it does not force a commitment to the filter or production hypothesis of consciousness. Much of what is done in refuting the idea of survival is merely bad neuroscience.
Nowhere does it say anything about Blackmore's (et al) work being "bad neuroscience".

Do you have a direct quote or not?

Don't play f**king games with me, Steve. You know better than that.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2006, 12:52 PM   #92
T'ai Chi
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 11,218
I didn't know the skeptical position of saying sleep disorders may contribute to the phenomenology of NDEs would cause so much debate, even if that debate is between one person.
T'ai Chi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2006, 12:55 PM   #93
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
 
Eos of the Eons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,626
Asking for proof or for more than one source (to eliminate bias) always seems to lead to debate.
__________________
Motion affecting a measuring device does not affect what is actually being measured, except to inaccurately measure it.
the immaterial world doesn't matter, cause it ain't matter-Jeff Corey
my karma ran over my dogma-vbloke
The Lateral Truth: An Apostate's Bible Stories by Rebecca Bradley, read it!
Eos of the Eons is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2006, 12:59 PM   #94
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons View Post
Asking for proof or for more than one source (to eliminate bias) always seems to lead to debate.
Not only that: It is highly skeptical to do so.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2006, 01:06 PM   #95
T'ai Chi
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 11,218
Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons View Post
Asking for proof or for more than one source (to eliminate bias) always seems to lead to debate.
If that were the real reason for the debate, you might have a point.
T'ai Chi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2006, 01:10 PM   #96
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by T'ai Chi View Post
If that were the real reason for the debate, you might have a point.
What makes you think it isn't?
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2006, 05:55 PM   #97
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
Claus are you so upset about this latest research because it refutes the
neuropsychology put forth by sacred cows like Blackmore, a CSICOP Fellow and a convert from belief in the supernatural ….. although I read she remains a Zen Buddhist on some level? A secular Buddhist perhaps. I have found some text links for you that help to back up my assertions regarding the old Blackmore et al point of view:

1. For an article by Blackmore on NDEs, offering explanations that fail to include that that they could be the result of REM sleep/REM sleep intrusion related hallucinatory. In fact she says all hallucinatory explanations are weak and falls back heavily on her drug model and her “dying-brain”/cerebral anoxia model which she says he (now?) refutes in a response statement at the end of the review.

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/si91nde.html

For a lengthy critique of her book Dying to Live, you will find in red text numerous quotes that highlight her position. This reviewer, however, also ignores the possibilities raised by the research in the OP here which is admittedly new even though REM sleep and REM intrusion and hypnogogic or visual hallucinations and non-visual (blackness but hearing sounds or people talking) hypnopompic hallucinations are well known for several decades.

After you review these extensive links I hope you can appreciate how complex this subject is made by both the refuters of NDEs and those who hold a dualist (mind/brain) position. This is why the model presented in this latest research is so appealing, so parsimonious as well as scientifically valid.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/articles001.html

Another review, this by a skeptic is here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...y.html#scicase

and preface here:

http://www.2think.org/black.shtml

The content of these links speak for themselves.


I am biased in favor of good neuroscience. I believe the reverse term was first coined by Dr. Bruce Greyson but can be used by anyone (just like “bad science” or “bad astronomy” etc) to describe speculative and suppositional notions when, in fact, those developing such theories have not kept up with the latest findings and technology used to obtain them, factors that provide a much better explanation than any of the convoluted and (frequently) impeachable rationales advanced by Blackmore and co. If you want to credit me for inventing the term feel free but that wouldn't exactly be true.

The notion of an anoxic dying brain is contenious and I am glad to see her refuting it. For several decades we have had non-invasive technology which can measure the oxygen saturation through the skin at the finger or toe tips, ear lobes and even from the capillaries on the forehead. These represent the most distal ends of the circulatory system; if the O2 Saturation is adequate at these points, barring a clot in the carotid artery or its branches or a clot in a part of the brain, there is no evidence to prove any non-neurologic patient having an NDE had cerebral anoxia as a reason for it. It simply isn't possible so that old skeptical reason for such an event is not valid at all. In addition cerebral anoxia causes confusion, not the clarity of thought expressed by those relating an NDE experience. This is what I would mean by the term "bad neuroscience."

Last edited by SteveGrenard; 22nd April 2006 at 07:42 PM.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2006, 12:01 AM   #98
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Claus are you so upset about this latest research because it refutes the
neuropsychology put forth by sacred cows like Blackmore
You have completely misunderstood my point. I am not dismissing this research at all. It seems to explain NDEs well. Of course, this is the only one, so far, and, as you well know, not supported by any other findings. So, you are being a bit premature when you hail this as the best explanation.

What I point out that your strongest case by far - Pam Reynolds - could not have had NDEs caused by REM.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
, a CSICOP Fellow and a convert from belief in the supernatural ….. although I read she remains a Zen Buddhist on some level? A secular Buddhist perhaps. I have found some text links for you that help to back up my assertions regarding the old Blackmore et al point of view:
What on Earth does this have to do with her research? Why is it relevant to point out her religious beliefs? What does it matter that she once believed in the supernatural?

Please explain how this is influences her research.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
1. For an article by Blackmore on NDEs, offering explanations that fail to include that that they could be the result of REM sleep/REM sleep intrusion related hallucinatory. In fact she says all hallucinatory explanations are weak and falls back heavily on her drug model and her “dying-brain”/cerebral anoxia model which she says he (now?) refutes in a response statement at the end of the review.

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/si91nde.html

For a lengthy critique of her book Dying to Live, you will find in red text numerous quotes that highlight her position. This reviewer, however, also ignores the possibilities raised by the research in the OP here which is admittedly new even though REM sleep and REM intrusion and hypnogogic or visual hallucinations and non-visual (blackness but hearing sounds or people talking) hypnopompic hallucinations are well known for several decades.
The review is from before the new findings. Please explain how the reviewer can "ignore" it.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
After you review these extensive links I hope you can appreciate how complex this subject is made by both the refuters of NDEs and those who hold a dualist (mind/brain) position. This is why the model presented in this latest research is so appealing, so parsimonious as well as scientifically valid.
But not supported by other, independent findings.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Another review, this by a skeptic is here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...y.html#scicase

and preface here:

http://www.2think.org/black.shtml

The content of these links speak for themselves.
Perhaps. What do you think about the content?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I am biased in favor of good neuroscience.
No, you are not. You are biased in favor of taking whatever suits your beliefs and ignore whatever doesn't. And, if you can get a swipe or two directed at skeptics, you won't miss that chance, either.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I believe the reverse term was first coined by Dr. Bruce Greyson but can be used by anyone (just like “bad science” or “bad astronomy” etc) to describe speculative and suppositional notions when, in fact, those developing such theories have not kept up with the latest findings and technology used to obtain them, factors that provide a much better explanation than any of the convoluted and (frequently) impeachable rationales advanced by Blackmore and co. If you want to credit me for inventing the term feel free but that wouldn't exactly be true.
I don't care who first coined the term. Do you have a direct quote or not?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
The notion of an anoxic dying brain is contenious and I am glad to see her refuting it. For several decades we have had non-invasive technology which can measure the oxygen saturation through the skin at the finger or toe tips, ear lobes and even from the capillaries on the forehead. These represent the most distal ends of the circulatory system; if the O2 Saturation is adequate at these points, barring a clot in the carotid artery or its branches or a clot in a part of the brain, there is no evidence to prove any non-neurologic patient having an NDE had cerebral anoxia as a reason for it. It simply isn't possible so that old skeptical reason for such an event is not valid at all. In addition cerebral anoxia causes confusion, not the clarity of thought expressed by those relating an NDE experience. This is what I would mean by the term "bad neuroscience."
Instead of blabbering, why don't you find that quote?

Or did you just invent the whole thing, as yet another attack on skeptics?
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2006, 06:26 AM   #99
T'ai Chi
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 11,218
This is a great thread to bump 3 years down the road.
T'ai Chi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2006, 06:50 AM   #100
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by T'ai Chi View Post
This is a great thread to bump 3 years down the road.
Feel free to contribute to the discussion with something of substance.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2006, 07:15 AM   #101
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
What I point out that your strongest case by far - Pam Reynolds - could not have had NDEs caused by REM.
It does not bar Pam Reynolds if she had her NDE when she was waking up.



Quote:
What on Earth does this have to do with her research? Why is it relevant to point out her religious beliefs? What does it matter that she once believed in the supernatural?

Please explain how this is influences her research.
That's rich. Skeptics are the first to point out that the results of paranormal research may be biased by religious beliefs which carry supernatural and paranormal aspects.



Quote:
The review is from before the new findings. Please explain how the reviewer can "ignore" it.
It's not up to the reviewer to do that, only that the reviewer should have been aware of the possibility for visual hallcuinations. But I agree it's not fair to cite him on this. He was reviewing Blackmore, not charged with throwing out alternatives even though he does this.

Quote:
But not supported by other, independent findings.
The occurrence of REM stage sleep, REM intrusions, arousals and visual hallucinations are so pervasive and widespread in the human condition that this is a given.



Quote:
Perhaps. What do you think about the content?
It's not important what I think. You asked for examples of Blackmore's research online and this was the only way I could provide it. I said what I thought of these reviews, they speak for themselves. You are asking someone to review a review. I suggest you do some work and critique them if that's what you want. You think you are very adept at getting others to do your work for you. Well I have done the looking, but won't continue to do so once the job is done. Move on if that's even possible for you.

Quote:
No, you are not. You are biased in favor of taking whatever suits your beliefs and ignore whatever doesn't. And, if you can get a swipe or two directed at skeptics, you won't miss that chance, either.
Now you presume to know what my biases are, what my beliefs are and
whether I am taking a swipe at a skeptic. I am a skeptic, not a cynic, I am biased in favor of good neuroscience and biased against bad neuroscience and gave a lengthy explanation on the whole cerebral anoxia thing to explain why. Do not presume to tell me what I am. You may give others the the impression you can crawl inside peoples' heads and divine their
beliefs and biases but you are, as usual, full of crap.


Quote:
I don't care who first coined the term.
That's your problem then.




Quote:
Instead of blabbering, why don't you find that quote?
I don't work for free or for the Skeptic Report. Tell me what you need it for. If you are using this forum to find editorial matter for your blog or whatever you want to call it, just say so. I am not interested in any case.

Quote:
Or did you just invent the whole thing, as yet another attack on skeptics?
That's not only rich, it's paranoid. The "whole thing"... all two words -- invented, as an attack .... my goodness, you really do need to get a handle on this.

Last edited by SteveGrenard; 23rd April 2006 at 07:19 AM.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2006, 07:45 AM   #102
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
It does not bar Pam Reynolds if she had her NDE when she was waking up.
But she didn't, did she? She had her NDE at a time when she was brain dead. You yourself argued this, in this thread.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
That's rich. Skeptics are the first to point out that the results of paranormal research may be biased by religious beliefs which carry supernatural and paranormal aspects.
Answer the question: How does her religious beliefs, the fact that she is a CSICOP member, and that she once believed in the supernatural influence her research?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
It's not up to the reviewer to do that, only that the reviewer should have been aware of the possibility for visual hallcuinations. But I agree it's not fair to cite him on this. He was reviewing Blackmore, not charged with throwing out alternatives even though he does this.
Steve, you claimed that the reviewer ignored this study. It isn't a question of citing him, it's a question of you misrepresenting his review. He did not "ignore" this study.

Has lying become second nature to you?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
The occurrence of REM stage sleep, REM intrusions, arousals and visual hallucinations are so pervasive and widespread in the human condition that this is a given.
Wrong. This study has not been independently replicated.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
It's not important what I think. You asked for examples of Blackmore's research online and this was the only way I could provide it. I said what I thought of these reviews, they speak for themselves. You are asking someone to review a review. I suggest you do some work and critique them if that's what you want. You think you are very adept at getting others to do your work for you. Well I have done the looking, but won't continue to do so once the job is done. Move on if that's even possible for you.
Hypocrite. You had no problems stating your review of a reviewer (when you falsely claimed that Greg Stone had "ignored" this new study).

Let's hear what you think of those articles. Don't hold back.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Now you presume to know what my biases are, what my beliefs are and whether I am taking a swipe at a skeptic.
During these past years, we have come to learn how you operate, Steve. We know exactly what you believe in, what your biases are and how willing and able you are taking swipes at skeptics.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I am a skeptic, not a cynic, I am biased in favor of good neuroscience and biased against bad neuroscience and gave a lengthy explanation on the whole cerebral anoxia thing to explain why. Do not presume to tell me what I am. You may give others the the impression you can crawl inside peoples' heads and divine their beliefs and biases but you are, as usual, full of crap.
You are not a skeptic. You are a hardcore believer, a cheat, a vicious liar, and a fraud. And I've got - and presented many times - the evidence to back it up.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
That's your problem then.
Do you have a direct quote or not? That's your problem.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I don't work for free or for the Skeptic Report. Tell me what you need it for. If you are using this forum to find editorial matter for your blog or whatever you want to call it, just say so. I am not interested in any case.
Steve, you claimed the quote existed. It is up to you to provide it. It isn't a question of whether you work for free or for SkepticReport. The onus is on the claimant. Namely you.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
That's not only rich, it's paranoid. The "whole thing"... all two words -- invented, as an attack .... my goodness, you really do need to get a handle on this.
I'm not paranoid at all. You have a growing history of deceit. I'm watching your every move, Steve.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2006, 10:24 AM   #103
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
But she didn't, did she? She had her NDE at a time when she was brain dead. You yourself argued this, in this thread.
This was based on her seeing instruments which were present or in plain site at the time. However I concede that Mr. Hans may be correct. Up to that point no refutation by Blackmore or any other media skeptic was valid.



Quote:
Answer the question: How does her religious beliefs, the fact that she is a CSICOP member, and that she once believed in the supernatural influence her research?
Its an invalid question. I didn't say anything of the kind. You are a b.s. artist. I said she was a Buddhist on some level, and yeah, a CSICOP fellow (not just a member...you got that wrong, why do you lie?) that's all.




Quote:
Steve, you claimed that the reviewer ignored this study. It isn't a question of citing him, it's a question of you misrepresenting his review. He did not "ignore" this study.
You lie again. I said he ignored visual hallucinatory phenomena, the possibility of REM or dream sleep as a possible cause. I clearly stated that the study we are talking about came out (long) after he penned this review. The possibility that NDEs are hallucinations have been around
long before this review. Blackmore herself says these are a weak
reason when in fact they have turned out to be the strongest and one of the best reasons.

Quote:
Has lying become second nature to you?
And to you it's become "first" nature.



Quote:
Wrong. This study has not been independently replicated.
Wrong. It is replicated every night when we go to sleep and have gogic hallucinations in the morning, which we rememeber, before waking up. What don't you understand about an ocurrence which is labeled as "pervasive?" That it needs to be replicated?


Quote:
Hypocrite. You had no problems stating your review of a reviewer (when you falsely claimed that Greg Stone had "ignored" this new study).
Wrong again. Based on faulty premise. See above.

Quote:
Let's hear what you think of those articles. Don't hold back.
You write the review, you are the one needing content for your blog.

Quote:
During these past years, we have come to learn how you operate, Steve. We know exactly what you believe in, what your biases are and how willing and able you are taking swipes at skeptics.
It must be amazing to be able to read people's minds. Who's "we"?
Can you share the names of all who are "we"? Who are all these telepaths who can read minds with you?

I am amazed that you feel it is bad to take swipes at people, skeptics or non-skeptics. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You are funny.

Quote:
You are not a skeptic. You are a hardcore believer, a cheat, a vicious liar, and a fraud. And I've got - and presented many times - the evidence to back it up.
Sick puppies need to go see a vet.You evidence is rubbish, outdated, innuendo, mired in your precious archives, used to concoct half truths and outright lies. In your own mind you can never be found wrong, never admit it when others here show you the errors you make. You never apologize, never retract and never concede you may've been mistaken. In case you haven't noticed, your behavior repeats itself over and over again. Were you one of those children who, when a grown-up had to break a promise to take you somewhere or get you something (for good reason), called them liars? I hate kids like that.

Quote:
not paranoid at all. You have a growing history of deceit. I'm watching your every move, Steve.

eeeekk, "... not paranoid. I am watching your every move." It is priceless.

Last edited by SteveGrenard; 23rd April 2006 at 10:37 AM.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2006, 10:51 AM   #104
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
This was based on her seeing instruments which were present or in plain site at the time. However I concede that Mr. Hans may be correct. Up to that point no refutation by Blackmore or any other media skeptic was valid.
Bollocks. It was a hell of a lot better than having a soul, astral body, or whatever you want to call it - leave the body and float around.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Its an invalid question. I didn't say anything of the kind. You are a b.s. artist. I said she was a Buddhist on some level, and yeah, a CSICOP fellow (not just a member...you got that wrong, why do you lie?) that's all.
Steve, you are not fooling anyone. You deliberately posted that to cast doubt on Blackmore.

And I don't lie, Steve. She is a member of CSICOP. That she is a fellow does not make her a non-member.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
You lie again. I said he ignored visual hallucinatory phenomena, the possibility of REM or dream sleep as a possible cause. I clearly stated that the study we are talking about came out (long) after he penned this review. The possibility that NDEs are hallucinations have been around long before this review. Blackmore herself says these are a weak reason when in fact they have turned out to be the strongest and one of the best reasons.
You are the liar, Steve: You said

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
For a lengthy critique of her book Dying to Live, you will find in red text numerous quotes that highlight her position. This reviewer, however, also ignores the possibilities raised by the research in the OP here which is admittedly new even though REM sleep and REM intrusion and hypnogogic or visual hallucinations and non-visual (blackness but hearing sounds or people talking) hypnopompic hallucinations are well known for several decades.
You even admitted that you had falsely criticized him for not including this new study.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
And to you it's become "first" nature.
You have yet to show one lie of mine.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Wrong. It is replicated every night when we go to sleep and have gogic hallucinations in the morning
Steve, you need to get this through your thick skull: You have hypnogogic hallucinations when you fall asleep, and hypnopompic hallucinations when you wake up.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
, which we remmeber, before waking up. What don't you understand about an ocurrence which is labeled as "pervasive?" That it needs to be replicated?
But not all of these hallucinations look like NDEs. They can be aliens, ghosts, anything your mind can think of.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Wrong again. Based on faulty premise. See above.
Bull. You criticized the reviewer for not taking into account this new study, despite his review was from before the study.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
You write the review, you are the one needing content for your blog.
Evasion noted. And SkepticReport is not a blog.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
It must be amazing to be able to read people's minds. Who's "we"? Can you share the names of all who are "we"? Who are all these telepaths who can read minds with you?
People here, Steve. And we don't need to be telepaths, because your own posts are evidence.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I am amazed that you feel it is bad to take swipes at people, skeptics or non-skeptics. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You are funny.
When I call you a liar, I provide the evidence. You, OTOH, make baseless and false accusations at skeptics.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Sick puppies need to go see a vet.You evidence is rubbish, outdated, innuendo, mired in your precious archives, used to concoct half truths and outright lies. In your own mind you can never be found wrong, never admit it when others here show you the errors you make.
The evidence is crystal clear, updated and very, very uncomfortable for you.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
You never apologize, never retract and never concede you may've been mistaken.
That, of course, is yet another lie.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
In case you haven't noticed, your behavior repeats itself over and over again. Were you one of those children who, when a grown-up had to break a promise to take you somewhere or get you something (for good reason), called them liars? I hate kids like that.
You hate a lot, I know. But thanks for your pseudo-psychological diagnosis. With so many other things, you are also wrong here.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
eeeekk, "... not paranoid. I am watching your every move." It is priceless.
Keep it up, Steve.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2006, 02:27 PM   #105
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
Quote:
And I don't lie, Steve. She is a member of CSICOP. That she is a fellow does not make her a non-member.
Indeed.

I do not know if Susan Blackmore is a dues paying member of CSICOP or not. It is not reflected in her CV. I do not know if being elected or chosen as a Fellow requires her to be a member or not. If you have data to the contrary kindly state it and cite your source. Thank you.


Her CV states only:

Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (Fellow, and Member of Executive Committee until 1996)

In any case, if one were pitting dues paying membership against being a Fellow, being a Fellow wins out, it is the more important of them. Hence you have denigrated her status in this organization. Why are you doing this to her?

Last edited by SteveGrenard; 25th April 2006 at 02:34 PM.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2006, 05:54 PM   #106
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
Quote:
Larsen: The evidence is crystal clear, updated and very, very uncomfortable for you.
Not at all uncomfortable. I grant you that "convention" calls for hypnogogic on sleep onset and hypnopompic at wake up but in the case of NDEs visual hallucinations may occur before awakening, not before going to sleep. It is also difficult to separate these from dreaming (see below updated through May, 2006). See also definition of "pompic state."



Quote:
Sleep Related Hallucinations 368.16

A. The patient experiences hallucinations just prior to sleep onset or
on awakening during the night or in the morning.

B. The hallucinations are predominantly visual.

Note: Hypnagogic or hypnopompic hallucinations may be difficult to differentiate from sleep-onset or sleep termination dreaming. Complex nocturnal visual hallucinations may clearly occur in wakefulness following sudden arousal during the night.

C. The disturbance is not better explained by another sleep disorder,
medical or neurological disorder, mental disorder, medication use or
substance use disorder.

Alternate names - hypnogogic hallucinations, hypnopompic hallucinations or complex nocturnal visual hallucinations.
ICSD. Diagnostic and Coding Manual. 2nd edition, (May) 2006.

Perhaps if I give you an example of a non-visual hallucination that occurs at sleep onset it
may help you to understand what I was trying to convey. I am referring to the Exploding
Head Syndrome which many of us may be familiar with. It occurs at the wake-sleep transition or in the middle of the night.

Last edited by SteveGrenard; 25th April 2006 at 06:01 PM.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2006, 09:34 PM   #107
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
While the simplest way of putting the Reynolds case to rest is to consider the fact that she was not unconscious or clinically “dead” by virtue of her brain activity and metabolism at all times during her time in the O.R. and during which she had her out of body and near death experience. The following account of the procedure by anesthesiologist GM Woerlee, the pertinent parts of which are quoted below tend to mesh with this. One of the key observations is that she heard Dr. Murray talking about the difficulty of inserting the catheters in her femoral blood vessels which are used to connect the patient to the heart lung machine. The heart lung machine pumps the blood from the body, cools it and returns it to the body, cooling the body itself. So she could not have been clinically (metabolically) dead as originally defined by her eventual body temperature of 60 degrees F. when she heard this and it is entirely possible that her other observations were observations made by her normal senses before she was fully under and fully cooled down; her experience was visual and non-visual, blurring the boundaries which you question so vigorously. The fact that the Kentucky authors are proposing that NDEs are the result of REM intrusion (which results in dreaming)and arousals (causing the subject to wake up) transiting the dreams into complex hallucinatory phenomena still makes the most sense to me. Can they be valid in the framework of this account, part of which follows below? While she was having an EEG, EEG is only part of the recorded data used to diagnose REM and I doubt whether she also had EOG and
chin muscle EMG being recorded so it is impossible to say.



Quote:

Author: G.M. Woerlee


The technique used with Pam Reynolds in 1991 was complex, although reasonably straightforward. She was brought into the operating theater. An intravenous drip was inserted, anesthetic drugs were injected, and she was under general anesthesia. The usual technique of general anesthesia then, as now, was a combination of drugs to keep her asleep, painkilling drugs, and muscle paralyzing drugs to prevent involuntary movements in response to the pain of surgery. A person anesthetized with such a combination of drugs cannot move, cannot speak, and cannot breathe. So a person under such a form of general anesthesia is attached to a respirator which takes over their breathing. This is a perfectly normal anesthetic technique used for many operations performed under general anesthesia. The usual monitoring of her vital signs was used by the anesthesiologist, in addition to which her electroencephalogram was monitored, as well as the response of her brain to clicking sounds in two earplugs was measured (VEP = vestibular evoked potentials). (N.B. VEP measurement is a very useful measurement of the depth of general anesthesia.) Her head was fixed in the position needed for the operation with a large clamp. The other parts of her body were covered with sterile drapes, and the neurosurgeon began the operation on her head.
At the same time as the neurosurgeon began to operate on the head of Pam Reynolds, the cardiothoracic surgeon, a Dr Murray, began an operation to insert the tubing of the cardiac bypass machine into the blood vessels in her groin. Cardiac bypass applied via tubing inserted into the blood vessels of the groin is a standard technique, and part of the procedure of hypothermic cardiac arrest. Blood is pumped out of the body, passes through a heat exchanger circuit in the cardiac bypass machine, is cooled, and pumped back into the body. This makes it possible to efficiently cool the whole body, as well as pump blood around the body when the heart eventually stops beating due to cooling of the body.
The body of Pam Reynolds was eventually cooled to about 60 degrees Fahrenheit (15.5 degrees Centigrade), the circulation of blood in her body was stopped, and the aneurysm was successfully operated. At this temperature, the metabolism of the brain and the heart is lowered to such a degree that the circulation can safely be stopped for about 45-60 minutes without causing any brain or other tissue damage. Subsequent to successfully operating on the aneurysm, the cardiac bypass machine was restarted, and used to restore her body temperature back to the normal 37 degrees Centigrade. Normal heart action was restored, the cardiac bypass tubing removed, and all the operation wounds were closed.
Pam Reynolds reported initially undergoing an out of body experience during this operation, after which she underwent a tunnel and light experience during which she entered heaven and interacted with deceased family members. During her out of body experience, she found herself floating above her body, and was able to accurately describe all she saw and heard in the operating theater. The time period during which these experiences occurred was accurately given by her statement:
Someone said something about my veins and arteries being very small. I believe it was a female voice and that it was Dr. Murray, but I'm not sure. She was the cardiologist. I remember thinking that I should have told her about that ... (1)
She was not on cardiac bypass at the time of her out of body experience, because the cardiothoracic surgeon was having trouble introducing the cardiac bypass machine tubing into the blood vessels of her right groin - they were too small for the size of the tubing and the blood flow needed for cardiac bypass. So the cardiothoracic surgeon eventually used the blood vessels in her left groin (1). This means that at this time she had a normal body temperature, and the normal responses of a paralyzed person who was supposedly under general anesthesia. And I say "supposedly under general anesthesia", because what she described was a typical period of conscious awareness under general anesthesia. This is something familiar to all anesthesiologists, and is an event that all anesthesiologists try to prevent. She felt no pain, but was clearly able to able to hear and describe what happened to her. How was this possible?
  • She felt no pain because of the effects of powerful painkilling drugs.
  • She was unable to move, breathe, or speak, because all the muscles of her body were paralyzed by a muscle paralyzing drug. So she was attached to a respirator which performed her breathing through a tube inserted into her windpipe.
  • She was conscious because the concentrations of drugs used to keep her unconscious were quite evidently insufficient to do so. However these drugs did calm her, as well as caused her to interpret her bodily sensations in an abnormal manner.
The ways in which the functioning of the body can generate clear out of body experiences during general anesthesia and other states of consciousness is extensively described in the book "Mortal Minds" (2). No immortal and separate mind is required, the functioning of the mechanisms of the body can generate all aspects of these experiences.
Why was her awareness not signaled by the VEP monitoring, or her electroencephalogram at the time she was able to observe what was happening in the operating room, or during her out of body experience? After all, both the awareness and the out of body experience are conscious experiences, and can only occur in a conscious brain. The embarrassing and humbling truth is that these monitors of consciousness are not 100% reliable. Measurements such as these, and other measurements are generally very reliable, but due to a variety of reasons, are simply not 100% reliable. This is certainly my experience, as well as that of other anesthesiologists. I have occasionally heard a patient tell me after an operation during which their clinical signs convinced me that they were asleep, that they were awake during part of the operation. These are humbling experiences, and ones which show that even careful monitoring is not always accurate. For example, recently a woman to who I administered general anesthesia for a varicose vein operation was quite evidently awake during her operation, (she felt no pain, but did respond to command to lift her head and grasp the hand of the anesthetic nurse), remembered absolutely nothing of her period of awareness after awakening.
Pam Reynolds wore tightly-fitting earplugs during her operation. These were attached to the VEP monitor, and continually fed clicking sounds into her ears to arouse VEP signals. These earplugs supposedly excluded all external sounds. This is why some authors make much of the fact that she could hear everything - after all, ther earplugs supposedly blocked out all external sounds. But the truth is that earplugs do not totally exclude all external sounds, they only considerably reduce the intensity of external sounds. Proof of this is seen all about us. There are simply enormous numbers of people all around the world, wandering around, listening to loud music played through earplugs, while at the same time able to hear and understand all that happens in their surroundings. So Pam Reynolds was able to hear what happened in her surroundings. And people under general anesthesia can hear things, otherwise this perfectly standard VEP monitoring technique would be useless as a measure of the depth of general anesthesia. Furthermore, she would have been able to hear the bone saw extremely well, because as the saw was cutting through her skull, the sound made by the saw would have been conducted directly through the bones of her skull into her middle ear where she perceived it. This is the normal phenomenon of bone conduction which everyone can test for themselves by pressing a vibrating tuning fork to one of the bones of the skull. So being able to hear, despite the insertion of earphones making clicking sounds is nothing wondrous.

The rest of this and related account can be found at the author’s website at:

http://www.mortalminds.org/reynolds.html

Last edited by SteveGrenard; 25th April 2006 at 09:36 PM.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 12:08 AM   #108
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Indeed.

I do not know if Susan Blackmore is a dues paying member of CSICOP or not. It is not reflected in her CV. I do not know if being elected or chosen as a Fellow requires her to be a member or not. If you have data to the contrary kindly state it and cite your source. Thank you.


Her CV states only:

Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (Fellow, and Member of Executive Committee until 1996)

In any case, if one were pitting dues paying membership against being a Fellow, being a Fellow wins out, it is the more important of them. Hence you have denigrated her status in this organization. Why are you doing this to her?
I have done no such thing. I pointed out that you were wrong, and you turn that into an attack on me.

This pathetic attempt of yours only shows your hatred, Steve.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Perhaps if I give you an example of a non-visual hallucination that occurs at sleep onset it
may help you to understand what I was trying to convey. I am referring to the Exploding
Head Syndrome which many of us may be familiar with. It occurs at the wake-sleep transition or in the middle of the night.
Perhaps if you read your own sources, you would discover that you are still wrong.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
[font=Verdana]While the simplest way of putting the Reynolds case to rest is to consider the fact that she was not unconscious or clinically “dead” by virtue of her brain activity and metabolism at all times during her time in the O.R. and during which she had her out of body and near death experience. The following account of the procedure by anesthesiologist GM Woerlee, the pertinent parts of which are quoted below tend to mesh with this. One of the key observations is that she heard Dr. Murray talking about the difficulty of inserting the catheters in her femoral blood vessels which are used to connect the patient to the heart lung machine. The heart lung machine pumps the blood from the body, cools it and returns it to the body, cooling the body itself. So she could not have been clinically (metabolically) dead as originally defined by her eventual body temperature of 60 degrees F. when she heard this and it is entirely possible that her other observations were observations made by her normal senses before she was fully under and fully cooled down; her experience was visual and non-visual, blurring the boundaries which you question so vigorously.
So, you retract your previous claim that she had her NDE during a time when she was braindead? Just yes or no, please.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 12:37 AM   #109
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,324
Another one titling me Mr. ... Oh, well.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
*snip*

If she did have her NDE/hallucination or whatever when her brain was cold there is a possibility the answer lies in the work of these authors who are on another track, discussing the requirement that certain quantum actions require extreme cold and could not occur in a warm brain. I hesitate to even offer this paper as an explanation, it's very hypothetical but I am putting it on the table anyway. Do I completely understand it? No. Maybe you can.


http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pdfs/Woolf1.pdf


I still like Mr. Hans' explanation as it is the most parsimonious. It fits also with the work of these Kentucky NDE researchers.
Whatever the the value of the hypothesis of quantum concsiousness (which I would prefer to label quantum memory, btw), it does not offer any particular explanation for the Reynolds case. What the Reynolds case does demonstrate (and that is very interesting in itself) is that the human memory is non-volatile. We have had good reasons to assume this for quite some time, but the Reynolds case appears to prove it conclusively.

In other words: As long as the brain is kept structurally intact, it retains it's complete memory, even if it is effectively "turned off" for some time. This can be seen to support the materialistic POV that claims that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain.

The Reynolds case seems to support this: Pam Reynolds' brain was rendered non-functional for a period of time, but was restored intact to a functional state, and she recovered her consciousness, personality, and memories. Among those memories were a recollection of experiencing an NDE, which could have occurred at any time, but most likely occurred during the shut-down procedure or the recovery procedure. Both procedures will include conditions that are consistent with those where NDEs are usually observed to occur: Low oxygen supply to the brain and borderline unconsciousness. I would vote for the recovery procedure to be the most likely time, since this would allow for the best conditions for remembering the episode, and would make it most likely to appear to have happened during the flat EEG period.

So, while other interpretations are possible, the Pam Reynolds case is fully consistent with the notion of the brain as a complex physical organ giving rise to consciousness and NDEs as a hallucination-type experience arising from certain physical conditions that are, among other situations, typical for critically ill patients.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 06:26 AM   #110
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
I have done no such thing. I pointed out that you were wrong, and you turn that into an attack on me.

This pathetic attempt of yours only shows your hatred, Steve.
I pointed out that Susan Blackmore is a CSICOP Fellow. You told me I was lying, that she was a CSICOP member. It is a matter of record she is a CSICOP Fellow. Her name can be found on the list of Fellows of CSICOP on their website and on the masthead of their publication The Skeptical Inquirer. I told you I could find no evidence she is also a member but I did not know. You presumably have information that you know she is a member. I asked you for the source and reference. She may indeed be a member. I am willing to say I don't know, you apparently disagree and raise this to the level of an accusation of lying and hatred because, as I pointed out, and I trust anyone else viewing this would agree, being a Fellow of CSICOP is the honor she has whereas being a member can be purchased by any tom, dick or harry with the money to fork over. Your evasion is duly noted.




Quote:
Perhaps if you read your own sources, you would discover that you are still wrong.
Sources are not all that's necessary. Dealing with this on a regular basis with real people has produced the confusion which has been mentioned in the 2nd edition of the ICSD which is sleep medicine's equivalent of the DSM.



Quote:
So, you retract your previous claim that she had her NDE during a time when she was braindead? Just yes or no, please.
This was asked and answered not only by me but by Mr. Hans as well.
If someone was convicted and jailed ten years ago for a heinous crime
and was exonerated yesterday by DNA evidence do you expect the
prosecutor, judge and jury all to retract their original decision which was made on the best evidence available to them at the time? I think not.
One can reconsider circumstances in light of new evidence, discussion and debate (the new evidence for me in this case being the OP here) but this does not mean it is necessary to retract a statement or decision made on other evidence previously.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 08:00 AM   #111
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
While I have a moment I would like to address the way you bandy about the word "hatred" or the act of hating. This can be a powerful or non-powerful word depending on context. You can hate something silly and trivial like "I hate it when it rains" or you can posess a serious hatred based on religious or behavioral grounds. I am not sure which is it you accuse me of. Anyone or anything that invokes a serious hatred on my part must meet some pretty awful criteria and you are not even anywhere close to being on that list which includes, for example, the parents of suicide bombers who send their children out to blow themselves up killing themselves and other innocent non-combatants. Human traffickers also earn my hatred. In short stop accusing me of hating you or anyone else unless I tell you I hate them and why. Thank you.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2006, 11:23 AM   #112
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I pointed out that Susan Blackmore is a CSICOP Fellow. You told me I was lying, that she was a CSICOP member.
No, I did not, you pathetic liar. I pointed out that she was a CSICOP member. I did not claim that she was not a CSICOP Fellow.

Steve, why on Earth would you post such an obvious lie? Don't you realize that nobody would fall for such a blatant falsehood?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
It is a matter of record she is a CSICOP Fellow. Her name can be found on the list of Fellows of CSICOP on their website and on the masthead of their publication The Skeptical Inquirer. I told you I could find no evidence she is also a member but I did not know. You presumably have information that you know she is a member. I asked you for the source and reference. She may indeed be a member. I am willing to say I don't know, you apparently disagree and raise this to the level of an accusation of lying and hatred because, as I pointed out, and I trust anyone else viewing this would agree, being a Fellow of CSICOP is the honor she has whereas being a member can be purchased by any tom, dick or harry with the money to fork over. Your evasion is duly noted.
You're nuts, Steve.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Sources are not all that's necessary. Dealing with this on a regular basis with real people has produced the confusion which has been mentioned in the 2nd edition of the ICSD which is sleep medicine's equivalent of the DSM.
Steve, your own sources prove you wrong!

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
This was asked and answered not only by me but by Mr. Hans as well.
I was asking you, not Hans.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
If someone was convicted and jailed ten years ago for a heinous crime and was exonerated yesterday by DNA evidence do you expect the prosecutor, judge and jury all to retract their original decision which was made on the best evidence available to them at the time? I think not.
One can reconsider circumstances in light of new evidence, discussion and debate (the new evidence for me in this case being the OP here) but this does not mean it is necessary to retract a statement or decision made on other evidence previously.
Just yes or no: Do you retract your previous claim that she had her NDE during a time when she was braindead?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
While I have a moment I would like to address the way you bandy about the word "hatred" or the act of hating. This can be a powerful or non-powerful word depending on context. You can hate something silly and trivial like "I hate it when it rains" or you can posess a serious hatred based on religious or behavioral grounds. I am not sure which is it you accuse me of. Anyone or anything that invokes a serious hatred on my part must meet some pretty awful criteria and you are not even anywhere close to being on that list which includes, for example, the parents of suicide bombers who send their children out to blow themselves up killing themselves and other innocent non-combatants. Human traffickers also earn my hatred. In short stop accusing me of hating you or anyone else unless I tell you I hate them and why. Thank you.
You brought up hate:

Quote:
Sick puppies need to go see a vet.You evidence is rubbish, outdated, innuendo, mired in your precious archives, used to concoct half truths and outright lies. In your own mind you can never be found wrong, never admit it when others here show you the errors you make. You never apologize, never retract and never concede you may've been mistaken. In case you haven't noticed, your behavior repeats itself over and over again. Were you one of those children who, when a grown-up had to break a promise to take you somewhere or get you something (for good reason), called them liars? I hate kids like that.
And now you tell us that you don't know what you meant.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2006, 11:57 AM   #113
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
No, I did not, you pathetic liar. I pointed out that she was a CSICOP member. I did not claim that she was not a CSICOP Fellow.
Steve, why on Earth would you post such an obvious lie? Don't you realize that nobody would fall for such a blatant falsehood? You're nuts, Steve.
I asked you for a source as to Susan Blackmore's membership which you claim she has. Evasion noted. I provided you with the source for her Fellowship; (see CSICOP's website, see any issue of their publication The Skeptical Inquirer). Please back up your claim she is a member. I am glad you agree she is a Fellow.



Quote:
Steve, your own sources prove you wrong!


That is entirely reliant on the comprehension of whomever is reading those sources.



Quote:
I was asking you, not Hans.
And I clearly, transparently (like a brille) answered you that I agreed with him. How many times does one have to provide you with the same answer?



Quote:
Just yes or no: Do you retract your previous claim that she had her NDE during a time when she was braindead?
And how many times does this have to be answered with an explanation I might add? The answer is no .......for reasons given previously. On the larger issue of NDEs in general, the new research put forth in the OP here represents the most likely, and most parsimonous non-paranormal explanation for them. Blackmore et al's refutations based on mood altering, hallucinogenic drugs and hypoxia and cerebral anoxia are non-parsimonious
and do not fit in the majority of recorded cases of which, annually, thousands are made known. In these there is no issue of drug use or documentation of cerebral anoxia; to the contrary many of these cases are normoxic and hyperoxic. In fact Blackmore's entire theory for drug induced NDEs is biased by her personal experiences. The fact that she can have NDE-like experiences by self administering drugs is irrelevant to the actual cases which occur. It is bad neuroscience.



Quote:
You brought up hate...


Er, I did not bring it up. You clearly did.

You accused me of hate, ostensibly(??) of hating you (which I do not) and everyone else (which I do not either). I cannot fathom how you know this. The emotion of hate is well defined for me and like everyone else who expresses this emotion, it is based on level: trivial or minor and serious. Serious hate for me is reserved for the most heinous acts of people against people which I outlined previously. When I say "I hate kids like that", I mean it on a trivial or minor level. Kids who call their parents liars when they don't, for example, have the time or money to do something they promised earlier and will not accept an explanation. In talking with you I do get the feeling you may've been dissapointed as a child and resorted to these kinds of tactics. Sorry, you don't qualify for serious hatred, examples of which are : parents of children launched as suicide bombers or people who traffic in human slaves.



Quote:
And now you tell us that you don't know what you meant.
I absolutely know what I meant. I don't know what YOU meant ... at which level and in what context you were talking about the emotion. It is a chore trying to translate your logic. I hope this further response helps to translate mine.

Last edited by SteveGrenard; 29th April 2006 at 12:14 PM.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2006, 12:11 PM   #114
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I asked you for a source as to Susan Blackmore's membership which you claim she has. Evasion noted. I provided you with the source for her Fellowship; (see CSICOP's website, see any issue of their publication The Skeptical Inquirer). Please back up your claim she is a member. I am glad you agree she is a Fellow.
Completely nuts.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
That is entirely reliant on the comprehension of whomever is reading those sources.
Ah. We're down to that old woo-woo credo:

"What do you think the time is?"

"Whatever you think it is."

Steve, there is no way you can worm your way out of the embarrassing fact that your own sources prove you wrong.

You can try, of course. You've tried before, in other situations, but always to no avail.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
And I clearly, transparently (like a brille) answered you that I agreed with him. How many times does one have to provide you with the same answer?
But you didn't answer the question, Steve.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
And how many times does this have to be answered with an explanation I might add? The answer is no
Thank you.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
.......for reasons given previously.
You still maintain that Pam Reynolds had NDEs while being braindead.

You claim that NDEs are best explained by REM sleep.

Please explain how you can have REM while being braindead.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
On the larger issue of NDEs in general, the new research put forth in the OP here
represents the most likely, and most parsimonous non-paranormal explanation for them. Blackmore et al's refutations based on mood altering, hallucinogenic drugs and hypoxia and cerebral anoxia are non-parsimonious and do not fit in the majority of recorded cases of which, annually, thousands are made known.
No, Steve. You have proclaimed that they are non-parsimonious and do not fit in the majority of recorded cases. But you have done nothing to show that this is so.

Your word is not evidence, Steve. And don't forget: On this forum, you can't delete other people's posts, and ban them, merely for disagreeing with you, or even prove you wrong.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
In these there is no issue of drug use or documentation of cerebral anoxia; to the contrary these cases are normoxic and hyperoxic. In fact Blackmore's entire theory for drug induced NDEs is biased by her personal experiences.
It is? Prove it.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
The fact that she can have NDE-like experiences by self administering drugs is irrelevant to the actual cases which occur. It is bad neuroscience.
Good old Steve: Always the first to sling mud on skeptics.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
You accused me of hate, ostensibly(??) of hating you (which I do not) and everyone else (which I do not either). I cannot fathom how you know this. The emotion of hate is well defined for me and like everyone else there that expresses this emotion, it is based on level: trivial or minor and serious. Serious hate for me is reserved for the most heinous acts of people against people which I outlined previously. Sorry, you don't qualify.

I absolutely know what I meant. I don't know what YOU meant ... at which level and in what context you were talking about the emotion. It is a chore trying to translate your logic. I hope this further response helps.
Steve, you mentioned hate first. Worm and squiggle all you like. Just don't try to turn the tables here. It won't work.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2006, 12:25 PM   #115
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
Completely nuts.
Evasion noted again.



Quote:
Ah. We're down to that old woo-woo credo:

"What do you think the time is?"

"Whatever you think it is."

Steve, there is no way you can worm your way out of the embarrassing fact that your own sources prove you wrong.

You can try, of course. You've tried before, in other situations, but always to no avail.
Of course sources prove ourselves wrong, all the time. Is there something inherently wrong with that? Throughout history updated and more recent works have served to prove prior work in error. You are opening up a subject that is way beyond the scope of this thread.



Quote:
But you didn't answer the question, Steve.
I did.

Quote:
Thank you
Your welcome.


Quote:
You still maintain that Pam Reynolds had NDEs while being braindead.
Not still, before yes.

Quote:
You claim that NDEs are best explained by REM sleep. Please explain how you can have REM while being braindead.
No, intrusion of REM w/arousal mechanisms, well documented on thousands of people
every night undergoing polysomnography testing. You are saying Reynolds is brain-dead.
I agree with Mr. Hans that she wasn't when she had the input which resulted in her NDE
recollection. Again, I said this again.

Quote:
No, Steve. You have proclaimed that they are non-parsimonious and do not fit in the majority of recorded cases. But you have done nothing to show that this is so.
You have reversed what I said to suit your semantics and rhetoric. I did
not say the OP was non-parsimonious. I said the opposite. The work in the OP most parsimoniously fits the majority of cases. I said it again, again.

Quote:
Your word is not evidence, Steve. And don't forget: On this forum, you can't delete other people's posts, and ban them, merely for disagreeing with you, or even prove you wrong.
Prove the researchers cited in the OP wrong. Get Susan Blackmore to roll out her drug induced NDE theories to refute them if you wish. CSICOP would do well to embrace this new study which finally gives a logical and scientifically possible scenario and explanation for NDEs.



Quote:
It is? Prove it.
Read the science press reports on the study cited in the OP and read the study itself. It is not up to me to do this for you. If you want to do a story in your online publication get one of your authors or yourself to do it.



Quote:
Good old Steve: Always the first to sling mud on skeptics.
What mud have I slung? Did I say anything abut Susan that was not true?



Quote:
Steve, you mentioned hate first. Worm and squiggle all you like. Just don't try to turn the tables here. It won't work.
Repetitive. Asked and answered over and over again.

Last edited by SteveGrenard; 29th April 2006 at 12:33 PM.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2006, 01:06 PM   #116
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Evasion noted again.
Utterly nuts.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Of course sources prove ourselves wrong, all the time. Is there something inherently wrong with that? Throughout history updated and more recent works have served to prove prior work in error. You are opening up a subject that is way beyond the scope of this thread.
It isn't a question of sources proving us wrong. It is a question of whether or not your own sources prove you right.

They don't.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I did.
That is a lie.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Not still, before yes.
What? I don't understand. You don't maintain that Pam Reynolds had NDEs while being braindead?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
No, intrusion of REM w/arousal mechanisms, well documented on thousands of people
every night undergoing polysomnography testing. You are saying Reynolds is brain-dead.
No, you claimed that Reynolds was brain-dead.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I agree with Mr. Hans that she wasn't when she had the input which resulted in her NDE
recollection. Again, I said this again.
Yet, to the question of whether you retract your previous claim that she had her NDE during a time when she was braindead, you replied:

Quote:
The answer is no
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
You have reversed what I said to suit your semantics and rhetoric. I did not say the OP was non-parsimonious. I said the opposite. The work in the OP most parsimoniously fits the majority of cases. I said it again, again.
You are becoming unhinged, once again. We are talking about Susan Blackmore's explanations.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Prove the researchers cited in the OP wrong. Get Susan Blackmore to roll out her drug induced NDE theories to refute them if you wish. CSICOP would do well to embrace this new study which finally gives a logical and scientifically possible scenario and explanation for NDEs.
Prove that her NDE theories are "drug induced".

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Read the science press reports on the study cited in the OP and read the study itself. It is not up to me to do this for you. If you want to do a story in your online publication get one of your authors or yourself to do it.
You made the claim. It is up to you to prove it.

Prove that Blackmore's entire theory for drug induced NDEs is biased by her personal experiences.

This won't go away, Steve. You might as well show your evidence.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
What mud have I slung? Did I say anything abut Susan that was not true?
You have done your best to cast doubt on Blackmore's arguments by referring to her drug use.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Repetitive. Asked and answered over and over again.
You pathetic liar.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2006, 01:31 PM   #117
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
Utterly nuts.
Evasion duly noted.



Quote:
It isn't a question of sources proving us wrong. It is a question of whether or not your own sources prove you right. They don't.
They point to the confusion surrounding this subject. They point to the
issue of where certain types of visual vrs non-visual hallucinations or dreams come during the sleep cycle. For me it is a black and white issue.



Quote:
That is a lie.
What kind of lie?



Quote:
What? I don't understand. You don't maintain that Pam Reynolds had NDEs while being braindead?
I maintain she had an NDE associated with her profound hypothermic surgery, during part of which her EEG evidence met the criteria for brain death. During "part of which" is the key words here you don't understand or want to understand.



Quote:
No, you claimed that Reynolds was brain-dead.
I claimed that during a part of the procedure she met the criteria.



Quote:
Yet, to the question of whether you retract your previous claim that she had her NDE during a time when she was braindead, you replied:
I reject the call for a retraction based on evidence to the contrary which is many years old and which has been supplanted by new data which makes more sense than the arguments of Blackmore et al.

Quote:
You are becoming unhinged, once again. We are talking about Susan Blackmore's explanations.Prove that her NDE theories are "drug induced".You made the claim. It is up to you to prove it.
I didn't say they were drug induced. I said she has said she has had
experiences and hallucinations which compare closely with those expressed by NDErs while she was under the influence of mind altering substances. She is self-admitted, I don't have to prove anything. It
is self-evident, requires no judging and is available in black and white
on her website and other publications to which she contributed and caused her name to be affixed thereto.


Quote:
Prove that Blackmore's entire theory for drug induced NDEs is biased by her personal experiences.
I didn't say her "entire" theory so you are now the liar. I said the drug induced causation for NDEs. She also offers cerebral anoxia as a cause
but has pulled back on that one. In response to that one originally, medical professionals have proven to her that there is technology in routine use which she and most skeptics were unaware of (continuous pulse oximetry and blood gas analysis) which demonstrate and prove that cerebral anoxia did not occur in NDE subjects whose cases came under study and scrutiny. (see Parnia and vonPimmel).

Quote:
This won't go away, Steve. You might as well show your evidence.
And why must I "might as well" show you my evidence? I have done my best to explain it and point you to it. I will not violate forum rules by republishing copious amounts of copywritten works here so you can report me for violating copyright,. I have fallen for your crap before on this. You are attemnpting to induce me to break forum rules and as such you should be rubuked if not suspended for this action. That's not up to me.

Quote:
You have done your best to cast doubt on Blackmore's arguments by referring to her drug use.
Blackmore's arguments and her self-admitted use of mind altering drugs speak for themselves. If a scientist is biased in favor of a theory that a particular drug works on a particular disease because that scientist uses the drug or category of drug themselves, this is not a good enough reason for that drug to be approved for use. It is an egregious invitation to bias.
I am sorry if you don't see or appreciate that in your campaign to defend the scientist.


Quote:
You pathetic liar.
Whatever. Evasion noted.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2006, 01:52 PM   #118
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Evasion duly noted.
No, Steve. It's not an evasion to point out that you are nuts.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
They point to the confusion surrounding this subject. They point to the issue of where certain types of visual vrs non-visual hallucinations or dreams come during the sleep cycle. For me it is a black and white issue.
.....then, why are you pointing to sources which - according to you - point to the confusion surrounding this subject??

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
What kind of lie?
"Kind"? You didn't answer the question, Steve. That "kind".

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I maintain she had an NDE associated with her profound hypothermic surgery, during part of which her EEG evidence met the criteria for brain death. During "part of which" is the key words here you don't understand or want to understand.

I claimed that during a part of the procedure she met the criteria.
As referred to in post #21 of this thread, you claimed otherwise.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I reject the call for a retraction based on evidence to the contrary which is many years old and which has been supplanted by new data which makes more sense than the arguments of Blackmore et al.
I have read this part of your post many times, and I still don't understand what it means.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I didn't say they were drug induced. I said she has said she has had experiences and hallucinations which compare closely with those expressed by NDErs while she was under the influence of mind altering substances. She is self-admitted, I don't have to prove anything. It is self-evident, requires no judging and is available in black and white on her website and other publications to which she contributed and caused her name to be affixed thereto.
You did, in fact, say that:

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
In fact Blackmore's entire theory for drug induced NDEs is biased by her personal experiences.
Prove that her entire theory is based on drug induced NDEs.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I didn't say her "entire" theory so you are now the liar.
Yes, you did, Steve. I just proved you did.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I said the drug induced causation for NDEs. She also offers cerebral anoxia as a cause
but has pulled back on that one. In response to that one originally, medical professionals have proven to her that there is technology in routine use which she and most skeptics were unaware of (continuous pulse oximetry and blood gas analysis) which demonstrate and prove that cerebral anoxia did not occur in NDE subjects whose cases came under study and scrutiny. (see Parnia and vonPimmel).
Blah, blah, blah. You did say that her entire theory was biased by her personal experiences.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
And why must I "might as well" show you my evidence? I have done my best to explain it and point you to it. I will not violate forum rules by republishing copious amounts of copywritten works here so you can report me for violating copyright,. I have fallen for your crap before on this. You are attemnpting to induce me to break forum rules and as such you should be rubuked if not suspended for this action. That's not up to me.
No, I am not attempting to induce you to break forum rules by posting copious amounts of copywritten works. I am asking that you back up your claims with evidence. And yes, that is up to you.

Links are fine.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Blackmore's arguments and her self-admitted use of mind altering drugs speak for themselves. If a scientist is biased in favor of a theory that a particular drug works on a particular disease because that scientist uses the drug or category of drug themselves, this is not a good enough reason for that drug to be approved for use. It is an egregious invitation to bias. I am sorry if you don't see or appreciate that in your campaign to defend the scientist.
Who ever said anything about approving these drugs?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Whatever. Evasion noted.
Again, you can try to yell "EVASION" whenever people point out that you are a pathetic liar (as proven in this very post). But it won't work.

Why you even try is further evidence that you are not all here.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2006, 02:12 PM   #119
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
No, Steve. It's not an evasion to point out that you are nuts.
If I ask you how you know Blackmore is a member of CSICOP and you reply back you're nuts then that's an evasion.




Quote:
.....then, why are you pointing to sources which - according to you - point to the confusion surrounding this subject??
Because their confusion is also mine. Everything is not the same as when Sigmund Freud first dealt with thius subject in his study of dreams although authors continue to parrot him.


Quote:
Links are fine.
Links don't exist for the book chapters Blackmore has written on this. Nor do they exist for the special issue of Journal IANDS that contains the
skeptical refutations of NDEs by Blackmore, Jansen and others and then
the refutations and rejoinders to these.



Quote:
Who ever said anything about approving these drugs?
This was an example why personal use of a drug will bias your opinion of it. Bad idea. Bad neuroscience in this case.



Quote:
Again, you can try to yell "EVASION" whenever people point out that you are a pathetic liar (as proven in this very post). But it won't work.
On the issue of Blackmore's membership (or non-) in CSICOP you have consistently evaded telling me how you know she is a member rather than just a fellow (which is public information). I am waiting for your answer on how you know this. It doesn't have to work for anything. It is self-evident. You want everyone to answer your questions but something as simple as this is evaded when asked of you.

Last edited by SteveGrenard; 29th April 2006 at 02:15 PM.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2006, 02:22 PM   #120
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
If I ask you how you know Blackmore is a member of CSICOP and you reply back you're nuts then that's an evasion.
No, I reply that you are nuts.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Because their confusion is also mine. Everything is not the same as when Sigmund Freud first dealt with thius subject in his study of dreams although authors continue to parrot him.
If you are confused about this, how on Earth can you say that this is all black and white to you?

You are nuts.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Links don't exist for the book chapters Blackmore has written on this. Nor do they exist for the special issue of Journal IANDS that contains the skeptical refutations of NDEs by Blackmore, Jansen and others and then the refutations and rejoinders to these.
Hey, post the names of the book chapters, the name of the books, the edition, the page numbers, and I'll look it up myself.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
This was an example why personal use of a drug will bias your opinion of it. Bad idea. Bad neuroscience in this case.
So, all drug users will automatically be in favor of said drug?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
On the issue of Blackmore's membership (or non-) in CSICOP you have consistently evaded telling me how you know she is a member rather than just a fellow (which is public information). I am waiting for your answer on how you know this. It doesn't have to work for anything. It is self-evident. You want everyone to answer your questions but something as simple as this is evaded when asked of you.
I never said she was not a fellow, you pathetic liar.

Prove that her entire theory is based on drug induced NDEs.

You claimed it was. Let's see your evidence.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:28 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.