(September 27, 2016 at 10:46 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 27, 2016 at 8:11 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Exactly, so how could we possibly make any reasonable assumptions about such a hypothetical?

So basically you reword and redirect the point I was making back at me? How does that work?
You should be addressing Mister Agenda and Thump.

---

Except that I'm not making any assumptions. Do you even English, bro?

(September 27, 2016 at 2:41 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 27, 2016 at 2:32 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: So...yes, they are based on simply anecdotal reports?

Quote:an·ec·do·tal
ˌanəkˈdōdl/
adjective
(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

What part of MEDICAL STUDY did you not understand? Or are you saying that medical studies are consider anecdotal evidence.

What did I expect discussing science with a person who couldn't even get the scientific method correct... And of course Stimbo is right there to kudos some BS.

These are stories about (supposed) studies, not the studies. Not the peer reviews about the studies. Both from England (which may or may not have an impact). There are no details, just random statements. This means little to nothing except to those who want it to be true, regardless of the evidence.

(September 27, 2016 at 3:02 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 27, 2016 at 2:46 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: The data of the study is anecdotal reports.  It's pretty simple Huggy.  Getting reports of personal experience can only be anecdotal.  Does this make it false? Nope.  But it does require something much more before we can just say "Oh, well they reported their experiences so their experiences must be true" and jumping to the conclusion that consciousness can exist completely removed from the physical state of the brain.

The point is, there should be no experience while the persons brain isn't functioning correct? A person being able to describe what happened to them while having no functioning brain, that experience also being confirmed by the doctors, is not anecdotal.

The lengths y'all will go to to reject scientific studies when it contradicts your world view is phenomenal, especially since NO ONE has proven that consciousness cannot exist after death of the body, but you'll accept that explanation no questions asked.

Show me evidence that it happened during the time of "no brain function" and not during the transition times from full function, to partial function to no function and/or the reverse.

There is already cognition transition evidence where people see and hear phenomena, it's called hypnagogia and hypnopompia.

With respect to the definition given for anecdotal... If that definition were universally applied then it would rule out all drug studies that rely on qualitative reports of affect by patients. Basically by that standard you have invalided research into painkillers, psychotropic drugs and mental health therapies. An organized collection of subjective reports counts as a data set from which scientific conclusions may be drawn. True anecdotes are outliers. The attempt to dismiss NDE research on that basis is misguided.

As for the NDE researchers I consider credible, they include Drs. Jeffrey Long, Sam Parnia, Pim van Pommel, and Bruce Greyson. THey have systematically collected data and published there results and in some instances their studies replicated. I am not aware of any skeptic who has performed any similarly rigorous research.

(September 27, 2016 at 4:51 pm)InquiringMind Wrote:

(September 26, 2016 at 6:46 pm)wallym Wrote: They are crazy.  But that's the beauty of life being meaningless.  You don't get more points for not being crazy.  

Unfortunately, you also don't get more points for being right.  If you have one person who is right and another person who is sexy, the sexy person will almost always get more points.  If I could choose between always being right and always being sexy, I'd choose to always be sexy.

Sexy, shmecksy, being right is sexy.

(September 27, 2016 at 5:34 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(September 27, 2016 at 4:51 pm)InquiringMind Wrote: Unfortunately, you also don't get more points for being right.  If you have one person who is right and another person who is sexy, the sexy person will almost always get more points.  If I could choose between always being right and always being sexy, I'd choose to always be sexy.

Sexy, shmecksy, being right is sexy.

It's all in the delivery. You can either shoot your "rightness" all over the place like a dick or be warm and inviting.

Some of us are predisposed to the one and the other takes work to develop. This isn't gender specific. : )

(September 27, 2016 at 5:27 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: With respect to the definition given for anecdotal... If that definition were universally applied then it would rule out all drug studies that rely on qualitative reports of affect by patients. Basically by that standard you have invalided research into painkillers, psychotropic drugs and mental health therapies. An organized collection of subjective reports counts as a data set from which scientific conclusions may be drawn. True anecdotes are outliers. The attempt to dismiss NDE research on that basis is misguided.

As for the NDE researchers I consider credible, they include Drs. Jeffrey Long, Sam Parnia, Pim van Pommel, and Bruce Greyson. THey have systematically collected data and published there results and in some instances their studies replicated. I am not aware of any skeptic who has performed any similarly rigorous research.

Pain killers can be objectively tested by applying pain stimulus and measuring physical non verbal response.

Antipsychotics medication can be objectively evaluated by comparing pre and post administration behaviors.

Mental health therapies can be objectively evaluated by comparing pre and post treatment behaviors.

Notice that none of these require the subject to relate stories.

Still waiting for the research, the study objectives, the data collection methods, the inclusion/exclusion criteria, the data analysis, independent reviews, ...................

Jeff Long, radiation oncologist, nuff said. Not qualified.
Sam Parnia, AWARE study, critique review: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index...ce-of-nde/
Pim van Pommel, review of the Lancet publication: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=23455
Bruce Greyson, rational wiki: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Forum:Bruce...info_found, there are plenty of other critical reviews

(September 27, 2016 at 5:44 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(September 27, 2016 at 5:34 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Sexy, shmecksy, being right is sexy.

It's all in the delivery. You can either shoot your "rightness" all over the place like a dick or be warm and inviting.

Some of us are predisposed to the one and the other takes work to develop. This isn't gender specific.  : )

I appreciate your digression, but I think we were talking about another kind of sexy there

(September 27, 2016 at 6:16 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Jeff Long, radiation oncologist, nuff said. Not qualified.
Sam Parnia, AWARE study, critique review: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index...ce-of-nde/
Pim van Pommel, review of the Lancet publication: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=23455
Bruce Greyson, rational wiki: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Forum:Bruce...info_found, there are plenty of other critical reviews

And of those critical reviewers how many are NDE researchers who have performed their own studies on the topic?

(September 27, 2016 at 6:24 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(September 27, 2016 at 5:44 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: It's all in the delivery. You can either shoot your "rightness" all over the place like a dick or be warm and inviting.

Some of us are predisposed to the one and the other takes work to develop. This isn't gender specific.  : )

I appreciate your digression, but I think we were talking about another kind of sexy there

I'm just saying one can be either projective or receptive/attractive in use of their "rightness" and there is a time for both. The ideal would be to learn both and be sensitive to what the circumstances and future growth require.