Another interesting definition. Death.

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The reports from the patients have been verified in some cases by the staff or family members, supposedly. That's a large group to be mistaken, or worse, to be lying.

That kind of situation is not uncommon; someone misinterprets what they witness, they tell other people that take their word for it and repeat it to others. In the repeated telling, it is often exaggerated, embellished, confabulated, etc., to make it more interesting/unusual/amazing/astonishing. Not just the uncritical and the trusting, but those that want to believe, the media, those with a vested interest, and the gullible may get involved.

So now you're saying the effect is real, just caused by something else?

What effect did you have in mind? If you mean NDEs and OBEs, I think it's very likely that people have such experiences. I'm entirely unconvinced that they are more than a form of dream state. Having had lucid dreams and having experienced psychedelics, I'm well aware of how powerful and vivid such states can be.

 

[Larniavc]

If you are arrogant enough to call medical doctors attending who verified the details as “liars and deluded” without even reading the case details,

Which details? All you have said it that they were verified. Data points not assertion, good sir.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Meanwhile , the veridical experiences are corroborated by independent evidence. So the experiencer was not lying.
Residual consciousness does not account for a remote experience, and it provably did not exist in the flat line ECG cases whose reflexes had gone , and pupils were blown. In one case no blood in head at all.

ed doctors such as bellg, and cardiologist van lommel explain all the medical limits of consciousness.

Tell me how does someone with taped eyes, and in some cases blind from birth describe what they saw , which was corroborated at a place which was out of sight?

You use all the usual generalisations which are completely inappropriate to these cases.

For the first time, study them , THEN comment, is a good order!
Explain how your random guesswork applies in the cases the attending medics studied in detail. Tell us why the medics were wrong.

I go by what I know of human physiology and neuroscience, and what the largest well-controlled scientific study of the phenomenon has produced, not books of anecdotes. YMMV.

 

[Mountainmike]

Which details? All you have said it that they were verified. Data points not assertion, good sir.

If you read, you would know. Until which time you have no basis to call medics liars or deluded. Indeed you have no basis to have an opinion.

That kind of situation is not uncommon; someone misinterprets what they witness, they tell other people that take their word for it and repeat it to others. In the repeated telling, it is often exaggerated, embellished, confabulated, etc., to make it more interesting/unusual/amazing/astonishing.

Which , like your other assumptions, bears no relevance whatsoever to the cases in question.

Why do none of you research before give a verdict based on your belief or assumption?

The reality of the “ veridical cases”

1/ Patient describes an experience of places , events , conversations.

2/ The event details are such that they cannot have been guessed at.

3/ Medic confirms the details that could not have been guessed are an accurate factual witness.

4/ Medic confirms that the patient was not conscious and even regardless of that ,the patient was not in line of sight or in a location to sense what they describe.

5/ medic confirms that no conversation with the patient could have communicated the details before detailing the experience.

since 1/ and 3/ confirm the reality, the patient did not misinterpret anything.

Those are the “ veridical “ cases.

if they were a trick , how was it done ( by someone who in most cases was seriously ill/ nearly dead who was brought into the hospital recently) so in no mental state to play games.

So you are accusing the MANY ! Medical doctors of lying about sonething they do not want to believe but are forced to accept because this is an established pattern, not a unique case.

The doctors say that Many patients are reluctant to share the experience because of ridicule , many doctors don’t share them because they are ridiculed too.
So there are probably a lot of undocumented cases,

But only study will confirm it. Read the books.

the largest study was pin van lommels. You have not read it.
And the only detail you obsess about - targets - were irrelevant in saboms cases , so targets were neither here nor there. I gave you the numbers earlier.

it’s time you revised your neurology, read van lommels book.
Many other issues are now making neurologists believe the mind is not just a process of the brain. Try neuroplasticity.

 

[Kylie]

Which is the point in essence my post makes.

In the context of humans death , it is also about consciousness.

Which evidence shows does survive brain shutdown and clinical death.

Thats a massive problem for any who think life is just random chance chenistry.

Are you suggesting that a person's consciousness can survive death? What evidence is there to suggest that? And what you are saying does not invalidate evolution, and it shows you do not understand evolution since evolution is NOT random.

 

[Kylie]

You mean you think it doesn’t, because it’s not consistent with your world view.

Meanwhile read the books eg
bellg, “ near death in ICU”
Rivas et al “ the self does not die”
Van lommel “ consciousness beyond life”
( plus many others)

All books are evidence from medics at the sharp end.
You will be forced to concede it does happen.
Self does not die is entirely veridical ( ie verified) experience where details that the patient cannot have known from brain based consciousness are verified mainly by the medics involved. Indeed the patients were not conscious medically- described as clinically dead/ flat line ECG.

Neurologists increasingly accept the mind cannot just be a function of brain, for other reasons too, not just NDE.
No possibility of other explanation than consciousness beyond brain.

Van lommels longitudinal studies as published in lancet confirm it.

Funnily enough, when such things are tested, they fail.

If you have a person in one room who has an OOBE, and they are tested by seeing which card has been chosen at random in the next room, they never get reliable results. Can you show me any examples of OOBE being tested where the person has passed such tests?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Many other issues are now making neurologists believe the mind is not just a process of the brain. Try neuroplasticity.

Please, do explain what neuroplasticity has to do with whether consciousness is a process of the brain...

 

[Larniavc]

If you read, you would know

If you have read those books you will have no difficulty quoting the evidence. That will take you no time at all.

Unless you know the evidence is un-compelling and are afraid to present it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

3/ Medic confirms the details that could not have been guessed are an accurate factual witness.

Is this the medic who is operating on the patient? If so, how is that person any better placed to have overheard, seen etc what was going on elsewhere since they were in the same physical location as the patient? How do they "confirm" something they were not witness to?

 

[Mountainmike]

Are you suggesting that a person's consciousness can survive death? What evidence is there to suggest that? And what you are saying does not invalidate evolution, and it shows you do not understand evolution since evolution is NOT random.

Read the books.
Ed doctors, neurologists and cardiologist at the sharp end believe that. I believe them. And until you study and find how an alternative fits you are in no position to argue.

I suggest you study chemistry
All quantum processes are random.
Life start is assumed a chemical event therefore assumed to be random.
Evolution as defined is survival of fittest on random genomic variation.
Which bit of random dont you get?

 

[Mountainmike]

Is this the medic who is operating on the patient? If so, how is that person any better placed to have overheard, seen etc what was going on elsewhere since they were in the same physical location as the patient? How do they "confirm" something they were not witness to?

I suggest you read the cases. How what I said maps into the cases depends on the case.
In some cases they confirm details of the operation or defibrillation the patient cannot have experienced , known or guessed.
In other cases a patient described a detailed conversation with a third party held in another part of the building at which the medic but not the unconscious patient was present
In another the patient describes drifting through the ceiling into a training facility of limits and Unknown to all public, but used by the medic and describes it precisely.
In another a temporary member of staff known to the medic was described in a different Part of the ward. Not there when the patient was conscious, and never in the patients ward.

for the last time will one of you READ the books/ research it.
Something none of you ever do whatever the topic.

 

[Mountainmike]

If you have read those books you will have no difficulty quoting the evidence. That will take you no time at all.

Unless you know the evidence is un-compelling and are afraid to present it.

There are several thousand pages.
I am not echoing them.
Either you care about science or you don’t.
It proves you have not studied them. read my reply to bungle for a flavour.

 

[Mountainmike]

Please, do explain what neuroplasticity has to do with whether consciousness is a process of the brain...

EgThe ability of the mind to alter the structure of the brain by training it. Read van lommels book , he quotes neurologists who hold the view.
There are many questions making neurologists question it, Like the nature extent and location of memory. Greyson was the first to question it and write about it, 40 years ago.

 

[Larniavc]

There are several thousand pages.
I am not echoing them.
Either you care about science or you don’t.
It proves you have not studied them. read my reply to bungle for a flavour.

So you are entirely unwilling to support your assertions? Quel surprise.

 

[Larniavc]

The ability of the mind to alter the structure of the brain by training it.

All brains can do that. For example musicians with perfect pitch exhibit larger leftward planum temporale growth than nonmusicians or musicians without perfect pitch. That's how brains work.

In your own words what does that have to do with OBE?

 

[Kylie]

Read the books.
Ed doctors, neurologists and cardiologist at the sharp end believe that. I believe them. And until you study and find how an alternative fits you are in no position to argue.

If you want me to read a particular book, purchase it and mail it to me. I will be happy to provide a postal address. If you are not willing to do this, then you aren't being serious.

I suggest you study chemistry
All quantum processes are random.
Life start is assumed a chemical event therefore assumed to be random.
Evolution as defined is survival of fittest on random genomic variation.
Which bit of random dont you get?

You need to actually read what I said.

I said EVOLUTION is not random. Evolution is a lot more than quantum processes, and it is a lot more than genetic variation. A very important part is the matter of WHICH specific genetic variations get passed on and which aren't. And that is most certainly NOT random.

This is basic evolutionary theory. If you do not understand the basics about evolution, you should not be participating in a discussion about it.

 

[Mountainmike]

All brains can do that. For example musicians with perfect pitch exhibit larger leftward planum temporale growth than nonmusicians or musicians without perfect pitch. That's how brains work.

In your own words what does that have to do with OBE?

If you ever read van lommels book you would know. Or you can choose blissful ignorance.

 

[Mountainmike]

If you want me to read a particular book, purchase it and mail it to me. I will be happy to provide a postal address. If you are not willing to do this, then you aren't being serious.

I don’t want you to read a book. But if you want to have an informed scientific discussion you will need to study first.

 

[Kylie]

I don’t want you to read a book. But if you want to have an informed scientific discussion you will need to study first.

And if money needs to be paid for me to study what you want me to study, then you need to provide that money.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I suggest you read the cases. How what I said maps into the cases depends on the case.
In some cases they confirm details of the operation or defibrillation the patient cannot have experienced , known or guessed.
In other cases a patient described a detailed conversation with a third party held in another part of the building at which the medic but not the unconscious patient was present
In another the patient describes drifting through the ceiling into a training facility of limits and Unknown to all public, but used by the medic and describes it precisely.
In another a temporary member of staff known to the medic was described in a different Part of the ward. Not there when the patient was conscious, and never in the patients ward.

for the last time will one of you READ the books/ research it.
Something none of you ever do whatever the topic.

I've had similar conversations with you before about Eucharistic miracles. I read the book you were making claims about and it turned out not to say what you claimed. When I pointed this out you completely ignored my post. I suspect this would be a similar example.