Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
October 30, 2018 at 11:36 am (This post was last modified: October 30, 2018 at 11:36 am by Huggy Bear.)
(October 29, 2018 at 5:22 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:
(October 28, 2018 at 6:52 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: There's one Major problem...
Your source is not in the least bit objective, infidels.org? really? If I posted info from a theist site would you'd reject it out of hand so why shoudn't I do the same?
Oh? Well then perhaps you'd be more impressed with the testimony of renowned parapsychologist Charles Tart, who in an essay critical of Augustine's paper wrote that Dr. Sabom had reported that the veridical parts of Reynolds's NDE occurred before cardiac "standstill," and that in recounting the timing of Reynolds' NDE that Mr. Augustine had a valid point about said timing (Tart, 2007). Or perhaps the words of Dr. Sabom himself, who wrote that he had read and agreed with Charles Tart's comments (Sabom, 2007), and that he acknowledged that Reynolds was placed on cardio-pulmonary bypass a full 20 minutes prior to her EEG reading flatlined, an event which could only have occurred following the conversation about the size of her veins (Sabom, 2007).
You were wrong. Augustine has the facts right according to the very doctor who first reported her case. She wasn't flatlined when she overheard the conversation about her veins, nor when the doctor cut into her skull with the bone saw. It doesn't matter what the biases of the publication may be, given that he is right on the pertinent facts of the matter as attested to by both Dr. Sabom and Charles Tart, and, likely the head surgeon's report as well.
(ETA: And no, if you posted information from a theist site I wouldn't reject it out of hand. So, on that point you are wrong as well.)
Nowhere in your source does it stat that Pam is experiencing an NDE, they repeatedly state she is having an OBE, the two are similar but different.
Some NDE's do experience having an OBE but you do not have to be near death to have and OBE, anyone is capable of having one.
Now if you bothered to watch that video I posted the surgeon that performed the procedure said in regards to the notion that Pam simply had anesthesia awareness and I quote:
Quote:You might be able to make a case for that during the first couple of minutes of induction, but not after that. After that you are in a very deep anesthetic state, and in this particular case you are in the deepest anesthetic case possible.
Not to mention she had earphones in her ears making clicking sounds, so according to him, there is no possibility she heard anything with her ears.
that being said, the original question (before you popped up trying to argue definitions) was; is consciousness a function of the brain?
As for the case Dr. Sabom's book, I don't have access to it, so I cannot corroborate it with the time line that you gave.
(October 29, 2018 at 5:22 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:
(October 28, 2018 at 6:52 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Also a quote taken from your site states:
Quote:pseudonym noun
pseu·do·nym | \ˈsü-də-ˌnim
\
Definition of pseudonym
: a fictitious name
As you stated Pam Reynolds married Butch Lowery in 1995. However Pam's surgery was in 1991, Pam Reynolds was her name at that time, and in either case, neither are a fictitious name.
(October 30, 2018 at 2:32 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: ,snip pointless blather>
So your answer is that you have not.
Well, I have. That makes you a fake claimant. All you had was a borked dream. I had the actual experience on the slab. You are once again making crap up.
Why does it scare you that I have and you have not? Is it that you are afraid that I have seen what you have not?
October 31, 2018 at 12:26 pm (This post was last modified: October 31, 2018 at 2:11 pm by Angrboda.)
(October 30, 2018 at 11:36 am)Huggy74 Wrote:
(October 29, 2018 at 5:22 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Oh? Well then perhaps you'd be more impressed with the testimony of renowned parapsychologist Charles Tart, who in an essay critical of Augustine's paper wrote that Dr. Sabom had reported that the veridical parts of Reynolds's NDE occurred before cardiac "standstill," and that in recounting the timing of Reynolds' NDE that Mr. Augustine had a valid point about said timing (Tart, 2007). Or perhaps the words of Dr. Sabom himself, who wrote that he had read and agreed with Charles Tart's comments (Sabom, 2007), and that he acknowledged that Reynolds was placed on cardio-pulmonary bypass a full 20 minutes prior to her EEG reading flatlined, an event which could only have occurred following the conversation about the size of her veins (Sabom, 2007).
You were wrong. Augustine has the facts right according to the very doctor who first reported her case. She wasn't flatlined when she overheard the conversation about her veins, nor when the doctor cut into her skull with the bone saw. It doesn't matter what the biases of the publication may be, given that he is right on the pertinent facts of the matter as attested to by both Dr. Sabom and Charles Tart, and, likely the head surgeon's report as well.
(ETA: And no, if you posted information from a theist site I wouldn't reject it out of hand. So, on that point you are wrong as well.)
Nowhere in your source does it stat that Pam is experiencing an NDE, they repeatedly state she is having an OBE, the two are similar but different.
Some NDE's do experience having an OBE but you do not have to be near death to have and OBE, anyone is capable of having one.
I don't know which source you are referring to here as all the sources I have quoted do in fact refer to Reynolds' NDE as such, but it doesn't matter anyway. It's true that people can have OBEs without having an NDE, but I'm not understanding what relevance you feel that fact has to do with our discussion. Our dispute concerns whether certain veridical experiences during Pam Reynolds' OBE occurrred while her brain was flatlined. Since the relevant experiences relate to the OBE portion of her NDE, your point is of no relevance to the current discussion. If you had a specific intention in raising the issue that you feel is relevant to our discussion, please explain what it is.
(October 30, 2018 at 11:36 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Now if you bothered to watch that video I posted the surgeon that performed the procedure said in regards to the notion that Pam simply had anesthesia awareness and I quote:
Quote:You might be able to make a case for that during the first couple of minutes of induction, but not after that. After that you are in a very deep anesthetic state, and in this particular case you are in the deepest anesthetic case possible.
Not to mention she had earphones in her ears making clicking sounds, so according to him, there is no possibility she heard anything with her ears.
that being said, the original question (before you popped up trying to argue definitions) was; is consciousness a function of the brain?
That's fascinating, but this current discussion has to do with whether you were wrong when you claimed that, "according to the medical staff performing the surgery, she was able to recount conversation and the equipment used to perform the surgery, [and] this would have been during the time she was flatlined." I can understand your wanting to change the subject and avoid facing up to the fact that you were wrong, but I'd prefer to finish this conversation before turning to other matters. If you'd rather dishonestly deflect from your failure here by changing the subject, I can't stop you from doing so, but it will reflect rather poorly on you.
As to the video, no I haven't watched the entire video. If there is a relevant portion which you feel I am overlooking, you may bring it to my attention as you have here, or ask me to watch the entire video, in which case I would be more than happy to oblige. As to whether Pam Reynolds could have heard the things she reports in her OBE through normal means, the evidence on that issue is inconclusive. I don't know whether you're quoting Spetzler or Sabom here, but since neither of them have the relevant expertise or evidence to say conclusively one way or the other, it does not matter. Since the issue isn't remotely relevant to the discussion at hand, I'm not going to debate the matter with you at this time.
(October 30, 2018 at 11:36 am)Huggy74 Wrote: As for the case Dr. Sabom's book, I don't have access to it, so I cannot corroborate it with the time line that you gave.
I'm shocked!
Actually, I'm kidding. I'm not surprised. I likewise haven't read it, nor do I have access to it. However, as I'll explain below, access to it is not required in order for us to draw appropriate conclusions about your statement relating certain elements of Reynolds' NDE and her being flatlined. You do have access to the relevant facts otherwise.
(October 30, 2018 at 11:36 am)Huggy74 Wrote:
(October 29, 2018 at 5:22 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Pam Reynolds was a pseudonym for Pamela Reynolds Lowery which was her name at the time of Dr. Sabom's writing about her case, having married Butch Lowery in 1995. This fact is attested to by multiple authors (Charles Tart, 2012; Michael Schmicker, 2002; Michael C. Gibbs, 2003; Gerald Woerlee, cited 2017; and Michael Sudduth, 2016). The only person who has any basic facts wrong here is you, Huggy, not Mr. Augustine.
Talk about irony...
Didn't you just accuse me of trying to argue with the dictionary?
(October 28, 2018 at 8:31 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: You're free to argue with the dictionary all you like.
Quote:pseudonym noun
pseu·do·nym | \ˈsü-də-ˌnim
\
Definition of pseudonym
: a fictitious name
As you stated Pam Reynolds married Butch Lowery in 1995. However Pam's surgery was in 1991, Pam Reynolds was her name at that time, and in either case, neither are a fictitious name.
While I'm impressed by your confidence in your opinion, I'm not otherwise impressed. You believe, as a result of some internet sleuthing and amateur detective work, that those who suggest that the name was a pseudonym were wrong and you were right, in spite of your not having read the most important source regarding the question, Dr. Sabom's book, Light and Death. Given that others who are more familiar with the case and have actually read the relevant source document say otherwise, I'll put my faith in them over some internet rando who hasn't. Your mileage may vary. However, since the issue was raised in order to throw shade on Keith Augustine's account, and the relevant facts in his account have been independently confirmed by no less an authority than Dr. Sabom and Pam Reynolds herself, it no longer has any probative value relative to this discussion, and so I'm not going to waste any more time arguing this idiotic nonsense with you. You're free to have the last word on this if you wish.
Now that I've dispensed with the red herrings and other irrelevant arguments that you've made, I want to lay out in detail what we do know about the relevant sequence of events in the Reynolds case and how we know them. The relevant facts are as follows:
1. Pam Reynolds, while under anesthesia, experienced an OBE in which she observed the surgeons operating on her skull using a bone saw. We know this from Pam Reynolds' own account in which she details hearing a musical note, popping out of her head, and then observing the use of and sound of the bone saw. See, for example, this NPR article on the matter, here (NPR, 2009). Additionally, Charles Tart notes that the use of the bone saw occurred around 9:00 A.M. (Tart, 2007).
2. Reynolds then overheard a conversation among the surgical team about the size of her veins. We know that this occurred prior to the surgical team engaging the machine and starting cardio-pulmonary bypass by simple logic. They could not have started the bypass if they had not even cannulated her veins yet. We know that this occurred after the observation of the bone saw by reference to Reynolds' own account, see here (NPR, 2009).
3. The cardio-pulmonary bypass was started. This happened at 10:50 A.M. We know this because Dr. Sabom testifies to this fact in his commentary on Keith Augustine's paper (Sabom, 2007).
4. The EEG monitoring Pam Reynolds' cortical activity flatlined at 11:10 A.M. and her brainstem activity ceased 14 minutes later at 11:24 A.M. We know this because Dr. Sabom also testifies to these facts in his commentary on Keith Augustine's paper (Sabom, 2007).
So, looking at the timeline, it's obvious that her observation of the conversation regarding her veins and her observation of the equipment used to operate on her (the bone saw) occurred prior to her cortical activity flatlining. So you were wrong, Huggy. Now, I want you to acknowledge that you were wrong when you claimed that "she was able to recount conversation and the equipment used to perform the surgery, this would have been during the time she was flatlined." (here)
October 31, 2018 at 10:29 pm (This post was last modified: October 31, 2018 at 10:45 pm by Huggy Bear.)
(October 31, 2018 at 12:26 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:
(October 30, 2018 at 11:36 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Nowhere in your source does it stat that Pam is experiencing an NDE, they repeatedly state she is having an OBE, the two are similar but different.
Some NDE's do experience having an OBE but you do not have to be near death to have and OBE, anyone is capable of having one.
I don't know which source you are referring to here as all the sources I have quoted do in fact refer to Reynolds' NDE as such, but it doesn't matter anyway. It's true that people can have OBEs without having an NDE, but I'm not understanding what relevance you feel that fact has to do with our discussion. Our dispute concerns whether certain veridical experiences during Pam Reynolds' OBE occurrred while her brain was flatlined. Since the relevant experiences relate to the OBE portion of her NDE, your point is of no relevance to the current discussion. If you had a specific intention in raising the issue that you feel is relevant to our discussion, please explain what it is.
(October 30, 2018 at 11:36 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Now if you bothered to watch that video I posted the surgeon that performed the procedure said in regards to the notion that Pam simply had anesthesia awareness and I quote:
Not to mention she had earphones in her ears making clicking sounds, so according to him, there is no possibility she heard anything with her ears.
that being said, the original question (before you popped up trying to argue definitions) was; is consciousness a function of the brain?
That's fascinating, but this current discussion has to do with whether you were wrong when you claimedthat, "according to the medical staff performing the surgery, she was able to recount conversation and the equipment used to perform the surgery, [and] this would have been during the time she was flatlined." I can understand your wanting to change the subject and avoid facing up to the fact that you were wrong, but I'd prefer to finish this conversation before turning to other matters. If you'd rather dishonestly deflect from your failure here by changing the subject, I can't stop you from doing so, but it will reflect rather poorly on you.
*emphasis mine*
You think I just made that up out of thin air? That is even what your own sources say that.
Taken from your own post.
(October 28, 2018 at 10:33 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:
Quote:"Sabom mentions a young American woman who had complications during brain surgery for a cerebral aneurysm. The EEG [electroencephalogram] of her cortex and brainstem had become totally flat. After the operation, which was eventually successful, this patient proved to have had a very deep NDE, including an out-of-body experience, with subsequently verified observations during the period of the flat EEG [emphasis mine] (van Lommel et al. 2044)."
Second, in his Immortal Remains—an assessment of the evidence for survival of bodily death—Stephen Braude erroneously describes the case as follows:
"Sabom reports the case of a woman who, for about an hour, had all the blood drained from her head and her body temperature lowered to 60 degrees. During that time her heartbeat and breathing stopped, and she had both a flat EEG and absence of auditory evoked potentials from her brainstem.... Apparently during this period she had a detailed veridical near-death OBE [emphasis mine] (Braude 274)."
YOU even emphasized those points, so how is it MY claim? My info is based on what Dr. Sabom wrote, HE'S the one that had access to the records...
(October 28, 2018 at 10:33 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:
As to the video, no I haven't watched the entire video. If there is a relevant portion which you feel I am overlooking, you may bring it to my attention as you have here, or ask me to watch the entire video, in which case I would be more than happy to oblige. As to whether Pam Reynolds could have heard the things she reports in her OBE through normal means, the evidence on that issue is inconclusive. I don't know whether you're quoting Spetzler or Sabom here, but since neither of them have the relevant expertise or evidence to say conclusively one way or the other, it does not matter. Since the issue isn't remotely relevant to the discussion at hand, I'm not going to debate the matter with you at this time.
(October 30, 2018 at 11:36 am)Huggy74 Wrote: As for the case Dr. Sabom's book, I don't have access to it, so I cannot corroborate it with the time line that you gave.
I'm shocked!
Actually, I'm kidding. I'm not surprised. I likewise haven't read it, nor do I have access to it. However, as I'll explain below, access to it is not required in order for us to draw appropriate conclusions about your statement relating certain elements of Reynolds' NDE and her being flatlined. You do have access to the relevant facts otherwise.
(October 30, 2018 at 11:36 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Talk about irony...
Didn't you just accuse me of trying to argue with the dictionary?
As you stated Pam Reynolds married Butch Lowery in 1995. However Pam's surgery was in 1991, Pam Reynolds was her name at that time, and in either case, neither are a fictitious name.
While I'm impressed by your confidence in your opinion, I'm not otherwise impressed. You believe, as a result of some internet sleuthing and amateur detective work, that those who suggest that the name was a pseudonym were wrong and you were right, in spite of your not having read the most important source regarding the question, Dr. Sabom's book, Light and Death. Given that others who are more familiar with the case and have actually read the relevant source document say otherwise, I'll put my faith in them over some internet rando who hasn't. Your mileage may vary. However, since the issue was raised in order to throw shade on Keith Augustine's account, and the relevant facts in his account have been independently confirmed by no less an authority than Dr. Sabom and Pam Reynolds herself, it no longer has any probative value relative to this discussion, and so I'm not going to waste any more time arguing this idiotic nonsense with you. You're free to have the last word on this if you wish.
Now that I've dispensed with the red herrings and other irrelevant arguments that you've made, I want to lay out in detail what we do know about the relevant sequence of events in the Reynolds case and how we know them. The relevant facts are as follows:
1. Pam Reynolds, while under anesthesia, experienced an OBE in which she observed the surgeons operating on her skull using a bone saw. We know this from Pam Reynolds' own account in which she details hearing a musical note, popping out of her head, and then observing the use of and sound of the bone saw. See, for example, this NPR article on the matter, here (NPR, 2009). Additionally, Charles Tart notes that the use of the bone saw occurred around 9:00 A.M. (Tart, 2007).
2. Reynolds then overheard a conversation among the surgical team about the size of her veins. We know that this occurred prior to the surgical team engaging the machine and starting cardio-pulmonary bypass by simple logic. They could not have started the bypass if they had not even cannulated her veins yet. We know that this occurred after the observation of the bone saw by reference to Reynolds' own account, see here (NPR, 2009).
3. The cardio-pulmonary bypass was started. This happened at 10:50 A.M. We know this because Dr. Sabom testifies to this fact in his commentary on Keith Augustine's paper (Sabom, 2007).
4. The EEG monitoring Pam Reynolds' cortical activity flatlined at 11:10 A.M. and her brainstem activity ceased 14 minutes later at 11:24 A.M. We know this because Dr. Sabom also testifies to these facts in his commentary on Keith Augustine's paper (Sabom, 2007).
So, looking at the timeline, it's obvious that her observation of the conversation regarding her veins and her observation of the equipment used to operate on her (the bone saw) occurred prior to her cortical activity flatlining. So you were wrong, Huggy. Now, I want you to acknowledge that you were wrong when you claimed that "she was able to recount conversation and the equipment used to perform the surgery, this would have been during the time she was flatlined."(here)
*emphasis mine*
Again that is not MY claim it's Dr. Sabom's claim.
(October 31, 2018 at 10:26 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:
(October 31, 2018 at 9:23 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Get over yourself, not one Christian I know of addressed you or your OP. God gave you free will who am I to interfere? In any case I hope you find happiness, but I don't think you will, especially in asking advice from a group that's constantly depressed and suicidal...
Moreover, mental illness doesn't preclude one from offering good advice, nor is it a character flaw.
Didn't anyone ever explain to you that 'I' is a personal pronoun?
Therefore "not one Christian I know of addressed you or your OP." is speaking of me personally, seeing how I haven't read the whole thread, and even then he wasn't doing what Dragonfly accused him of doing.
(October 31, 2018 at 3:02 pm)Dragonfly Wrote: If god is so all-powerful, why would he need these vultures to help cram their shit down people's throats?
November 3, 2018 at 4:58 am (This post was last modified: November 3, 2018 at 5:28 am by Angrboda.)
(October 31, 2018 at 10:29 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(October 31, 2018 at 12:26 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I don't know which source you are referring to here as all the sources I have quoted do in fact refer to Reynolds' NDE as such, but it doesn't matter anyway. It's true that people can have OBEs without having an NDE, but I'm not understanding what relevance you feel that fact has to do with our discussion. Our dispute concerns whether certain veridical experiences during Pam Reynolds' OBE occurrred while her brain was flatlined. Since the relevant experiences relate to the OBE portion of her NDE, your point is of no relevance to the current discussion. If you had a specific intention in raising the issue that you feel is relevant to our discussion, please explain what it is.
Yes, he does refer to that part of her NDE as an OBE as well as referring to her overall experience as an NDE at other points in the article (e.g. "errors of fact greatly exaggerate the force of this NDE as evidence for survival after death"). As noted, OBEs sometimes occur without any corresponding elements of an NDE. When they do, however, the combined experience is considered an NDE and the OBE portion of it is considered an element of that NDE. This is perfectly consistent with Augustine's account as well as with what I said above that all the sources I had quoted refer to Pam Reynolds' experience as an NDE and consistent with standard usage. Additionally, some passages refer to specific parts of her NDE as an OBE. Exactly why you feel this is important or relevant I have no fucking idea. I asked you previously to explain what your intention in bringing it up was, but you chose to ignore my request. At best I can guess this is some reading comprehension fail like your example below. If it's something more than tell me what it is. What's your point, Huggy?
(October 31, 2018 at 10:29 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(October 31, 2018 at 12:26 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:
(October 30, 2018 at 11:36 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Now if you bothered to watch that video I posted the surgeon that performed the procedure said in regards to the notion that Pam simply had anesthesia awareness and I quote:
Not to mention she had earphones in her ears making clicking sounds, so according to him, there is no possibility she heard anything with her ears.
that being said, the original question (before you popped up trying to argue definitions) was; is consciousness a function of the brain?
That's fascinating, but this current discussion has to do with whether you were wrong when you claimedthat, "according to the medical staff performing the surgery, she was able to recount conversation and the equipment used to perform the surgery, [and] this would have been during the time she was flatlined." I can understand your wanting to change the subject and avoid facing up to the fact that you were wrong, but I'd prefer to finish this conversation before turning to other matters. If you'd rather dishonestly deflect from your failure here by changing the subject, I can't stop you from doing so, but it will reflect rather poorly on you.
*emphasis mine*
You think I just made that up out of thin air? That is even what your own sources say that.
Taken from your own post.
Keith Augustine Wrote:"Sabom mentions a young American woman who had complications during brain surgery for a cerebral aneurysm. The EEG [electroencephalogram] of her cortex and brainstem had become totally flat. After the operation, which was eventually successful, this patient proved to have had a very deep NDE, including an out-of-body experience, with subsequently verified observations during the period of the flat EEG [emphasis mine] (van Lommel et al. 2044)."
Second, in his Immortal Remains—an assessment of the evidence for survival of bodily death—Stephen Braude erroneously describes the case as follows:
"Sabom reports the case of a woman who, for about an hour, had all the blood drained from her head and her body temperature lowered to 60 degrees. During that time her heartbeat and breathing stopped, and she had both a flat EEG and absence of auditory evoked potentials from her brainstem.... Apparently during this period she had a detailed veridical near-death OBE [emphasis mine] (Braude 274)."
YOU even emphasized those points, so how is it MY claim? My info is based on what Dr. Sabom wrote, HE'S the one that had access to the records...
(October 28, 2018 at 10:33 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:
As to the video, no I haven't watched the entire video. If there is a relevant portion which you feel I am overlooking, you may bring it to my attention as you have here, or ask me to watch the entire video, in which case I would be more than happy to oblige. As to whether Pam Reynolds could have heard the things she reports in her OBE through normal means, the evidence on that issue is inconclusive. I don't know whether you're quoting Spetzler or Sabom here, but since neither of them have the relevant expertise or evidence to say conclusively one way or the other, it does not matter. Since the issue isn't remotely relevant to the discussion at hand, I'm not going to debate the matter with you at this time.
I'm shocked!
Actually, I'm kidding. I'm not surprised. I likewise haven't read it, nor do I have access to it. However, as I'll explain below, access to it is not required in order for us to draw appropriate conclusions about your statement relating certain elements of Reynolds' NDE and her being flatlined. You do have access to the relevant facts otherwise.
While I'm impressed by your confidence in your opinion, I'm not otherwise impressed. You believe, as a result of some internet sleuthing and amateur detective work, that those who suggest that the name was a pseudonym were wrong and you were right, in spite of your not having read the most important source regarding the question, Dr. Sabom's book, Light and Death. Given that others who are more familiar with the case and have actually read the relevant source document say otherwise, I'll put my faith in them over some internet rando who hasn't. Your mileage may vary. However, since the issue was raised in order to throw shade on Keith Augustine's account, and the relevant facts in his account have been independently confirmed by no less an authority than Dr. Sabom and Pam Reynolds herself, it no longer has any probative value relative to this discussion, and so I'm not going to waste any more time arguing this idiotic nonsense with you. You're free to have the last word on this if you wish.
Now that I've dispensed with the red herrings and other irrelevant arguments that you've made, I want to lay out in detail what we do know about the relevant sequence of events in the Reynolds case and how we know them. The relevant facts are as follows:
1. Pam Reynolds, while under anesthesia, experienced an OBE in which she observed the surgeons operating on her skull using a bone saw. We know this from Pam Reynolds' own account in which she details hearing a musical note, popping out of her head, and then observing the use of and sound of the bone saw. See, for example, this NPR article on the matter, here (NPR, 2009). Additionally, Charles Tart notes that the use of the bone saw occurred around 9:00 A.M. (Tart, 2007).
2. Reynolds then overheard a conversation among the surgical team about the size of her veins. We know that this occurred prior to the surgical team engaging the machine and starting cardio-pulmonary bypass by simple logic. They could not have started the bypass if they had not even cannulated her veins yet. We know that this occurred after the observation of the bone saw by reference to Reynolds' own account, see here (NPR, 2009).
3. The cardio-pulmonary bypass was started. This happened at 10:50 A.M. We know this because Dr. Sabom testifies to this fact in his commentary on Keith Augustine's paper (Sabom, 2007).
4. The EEG monitoring Pam Reynolds' cortical activity flatlined at 11:10 A.M. and her brainstem activity ceased 14 minutes later at 11:24 A.M. We know this because Dr. Sabom also testifies to these facts in his commentary on Keith Augustine's paper (Sabom, 2007).
So, looking at the timeline, it's obvious that her observation of the conversation regarding her veins and her observation of the equipment used to operate on her (the bone saw) occurred prior to her cortical activity flatlining. So you were wrong, Huggy. Now, I want you to acknowledge that you were wrong when you claimed that "she was able to recount conversation and the equipment used to perform the surgery, this would have been during the time she was flatlined."(here)
*emphasis mine*
Again that is not MY claim it's Dr. Sabom's claim.
First, I never claimed that you had simply made up the claim. And I did not say that it was your "claim" using claim as a noun, but that you "claimed," the verb, that those events occurred while Reynolds was flatlined. According to google, to claim, the verb, means to "state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof." You indeed were asserting that this was the case, even if you did provide support for your statement later. But you also went further than that. Upon being shown information which cast doubt upon Dr. Sabom's statement, instead of doing what I did and following the footnotes of Augustine's paper to the same information that I found wherein Sabom contradicted himself, you chose to double down and make an aggressive defense of your statement by making ridiculous ad hominem arguments against the Augustine paper. Even after I explicitly linked you to that information, you have continued to argue the point. And it's dishonest of you to bring up my quote of Sabom via Augustine as Augustine was in that passage drawing attention to how Sabom's claim was wrong, so trying to pass it off as something that I agreed with is just lying by quoting out of context. So, no, you didn't just pass off somebody else's claim. It became your claim when you restated Sabom's conclusions and then went on to aggressively defend his conclusions with additional arguments. But what is your ultimate point here, Huggy? That you're not responsible for the statements you make if they are based on something outside yourself? That's ludicrous! You wouldn't accept that for Khemikal's statement about bees or Pandemonium's statement about Denmark if they were to assert it, so why should it hold any weight with you? Indeed, if we can't hold you responsible for the statements you make, then I guess all your bloviation about how superior you are to atheists and what a critical thinker you are don't hold water because you aren't the one responsible for the statements you've made. You are responsible for the things you post, the arguments you make, and the beliefs you hold. That is just common sense. So exactly what point are you trying to make here by pointing out that "the claim" was Dr. Sabom's? What the fuck are you on about, other than muddying up the waters with more irrelevancies and red herrings?
Now, you ignored my prior request for an acknowledgement that you were wrong when you stated that, "she was able to recount conversation and the equipment used to perform the surgery, this would have been during the time she was flatlined." Were you or were you not wrong when you said this?
Yes, he does refer to that part of her NDE as an OBE as well as referring to her overall experience as an NDE at other points in the article (e.g. "errors of fact greatly exaggerate the force of this NDE as evidence for survival after death"). As noted, OBEs sometimes occur without any corresponding elements of an NDE. When they do, however, the combined experience is considered an NDE and the OBE portion of it is considered an element of that NDE. This is perfectly consistent with Augustine's account as well as with what I said above that all the sources I had quoted refer to Pam Reynolds' experience as an NDE and consistent with standard usage. Additionally, some passages refer to specific parts of her NDE as an OBE. Exactly why you feel this is important or relevant I have no fucking idea. I asked you previously to explain what your intention in bringing it up was, but you chose to ignore my request. At best I can guess this is some reading comprehension fail like your example below. If it's something more than tell me what it is. What's your point, Huggy?
(October 31, 2018 at 10:29 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: *emphasis mine*
You think I just made that up out of thin air? That is even what your own sources say that.
Taken from your own post.
YOU even emphasized those points, so how is it MY claim? My info is based on what Dr. Sabom wrote, HE'S the one that had access to the records...
*emphasis mine*
Again that is not MY claim it's Dr. Sabom's claim.
First, I never claimed that you had simply made up the claim. And I did not say that it was your "claim" using claim as a noun, but that you "claimed," the verb, that those events occurred while Reynolds was flatlined. According to google, to claim, the verb, means to "state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof." You indeed were asserting that this was the case, even if you did provide support for your statement later.
*emphasis mine*
You pretty much contradicted yourself within the same post...
(November 3, 2018 at 4:58 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: It became your claim when you restated Sabom's conclusions and then went on to aggressively defend his conclusions with additional arguments.
*emphasis mine*
If according to you, aggressively defending Dr. Sabom's conclusions (which I did no such thing, I plainly stated that I had no access to his book, what I did do was point out your source incorrectly referring to Pam's name as a 'pseudonym') then explain how YOUR aggressive defense of the opinions expressed in the 'Bell curve' did not become YOUR claim?
(November 3, 2018 at 4:58 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: But you also went further than that. Upon being shown information which cast doubt upon Dr. Sabom's statement, instead of doing what I did and following the footnotes of Augustine's paper to the same information that I found wherein Sabom contradicted himself, you chose to double down and make an aggressive defense of your statement by making ridiculous ad hominem arguments against the Augustine paper. Even after I explicitly linked you to that information, you have continued to argue the point.
(November 3, 2018 at 4:58 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: And it's dishonest of you to bring up my quote of Sabom via Augustine as Augustine was in that passage drawing attention to how Sabom's claim was wrong, so trying to pass it off as something that I agreed with is just lying by quoting out of context. So, no, you didn't just pass off somebody else's claim. It became your claim when you restated Sabom's conclusions and then went on to aggressively defend his conclusions with additional arguments.
*emphasis mine*
That was not my purpose and you full well know it.
My point in quoting that was not to imply your agreement, but to show that what I said was clearly not MY CLAIM, but was a reference to A CLAIM...
(November 3, 2018 at 4:58 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: But what is your ultimate point here, Huggy? That you're not responsible for the statements you make if they are based on something outside yourself? That's ludicrous! You wouldn't accept that for Khemikal's statement about bees or Pandemonium's statement about Denmark if they were to assert it, so why should it hold any weight with you? Indeed, if we can't hold you responsible for the statements you make, then I guess all your bloviation about how superior you are to atheists and what a critical thinker you are don't hold water because you aren't the one responsible for the statements you've made.
*emphasis mine*
Strawman argument...
Khemikal's and Pandemonium's statement's were purely based on their own ass...
Show me where they referenced ANY source that supported their statements. If they did so, then we'd be talking about the same thing, but they didn't so what are you on about? Both of their statements directly contradict facts, what we're discussing cannot be described as absolute fact in either case.
Quote:(Cardiologist Michael Sabom in his book Light and Death says that this occurred during a period in which her brain had completely ceased to function, but it is not clear that it occurred during this period.)
*emphasis mine*
(November 3, 2018 at 4:58 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: You are responsible for the things you post, the arguments you make, and the beliefs you hold. That is just common sense. So exactly what point are you trying to make here by pointing out that "the claim" was Dr. Sabom's? What the fuck are you on about, other than muddying up the waters with more irrelevancies and red herrings?
*emphasis mine*
(I guess the part in bold only applies when it's augments not based on the bell curve?)
If you don't know why I would defer to someone else with medical expertise that has clearly has done more extensive research on the subject than I have, then I really don't know what else to say to you...
Yeah, the guy who just happens to be in the medical profession, who did the research and wrote the book on Pam Reynolds experience (the basis of this debate), his conclusion is totally irrelevant...
(November 3, 2018 at 4:58 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Now, you ignored my prior request for an acknowledgement that you were wrong when you stated that, "she was able to recount conversation and the equipment used to perform the surgery, this would have been during the time she was flatlined." Were you or were you not wrong when you said this?
I prefaced that statement with "According to"... which you conveniently left out.
However to answer your question, the answer is no.
November 7, 2018 at 8:58 am (This post was last modified: November 7, 2018 at 10:47 am by Angrboda.)
(November 6, 2018 at 8:29 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(November 3, 2018 at 4:58 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:
Yes, he does refer to that part of her NDE as an OBE as well as referring to her overall experience as an NDE at other points in the article (e.g. "errors of fact greatly exaggerate the force of this NDE as evidence for survival after death"). As noted, OBEs sometimes occur without any corresponding elements of an NDE. When they do, however, the combined experience is considered an NDE and the OBE portion of it is considered an element of that NDE. This is perfectly consistent with Augustine's account as well as with what I said above that all the sources I had quoted refer to Pam Reynolds' experience as an NDE and consistent with standard usage. Additionally, some passages refer to specific parts of her NDE as an OBE. Exactly why you feel this is important or relevant I have no fucking idea. I asked you previously to explain what your intention in bringing it up was, but you chose to ignore my request. At best I can guess this is some reading comprehension fail like your example below. If it's something more than tell me what it is. What's your point, Huggy?
First, I never claimed that you had simply made up the claim. And I did not say that it was your "claim" using claim as a noun, but that you "claimed," the verb, that those events occurred while Reynolds was flatlined. According to google, to claim, the verb, means to "state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof." You indeed were asserting that this was the case, even if you did provide support for your statement later.
*emphasis mine*
You pretty much contradicted yourself within the same post...
No, I did not. I had not said that it was your claim. That I may have later argued that it was your claim is not a contradiction.
(November 6, 2018 at 8:29 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(November 3, 2018 at 4:58 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: It became your claim when you restated Sabom's conclusions and then went on to aggressively defend his conclusions with additional arguments.
*emphasis mine*
If according to you, aggressively defending Dr. Sabom's conclusions (which I did no such thing, I plainly stated that I had no access to his book, what I did do was point out your source incorrectly referring to Pam's name as a 'pseudonym') then explain how YOUR aggressive defense of the opinions expressed in the 'Bell curve' did not become YOUR claim?
Since I never aggressively defended the opinions expressed in the 'Bell curve', I have nothing to explain.
(November 6, 2018 at 8:29 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(November 3, 2018 at 4:58 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: But you also went further than that. Upon being shown information which cast doubt upon Dr. Sabom's statement, instead of doing what I did and following the footnotes of Augustine's paper to the same information that I found wherein Sabom contradicted himself, you chose to double down and make an aggressive defense of your statement by making ridiculous ad hominem arguments against the Augustine paper. Even after I explicitly linked you to that information, you have continued to argue the point.
You did that and you also attacked the credibility of Augustine's other claims based upon your belief that he was wrong in referring to Pam Reynolds as a pseudonym. Regardless of whether you think such attacks are reasonable or not, they are ad hominem arguments, as they address the qualities of the man in order to cast doubt on his other facts and arguments rather than actually demonstrating those facts are wrong. As the expression goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Arguing that because someone is biased or had some unrelated fact wrong does not lead to the conclusion that they are wrong about their other facts. Perhaps it is evidence that they might be wrong, but, as noted, he wasn't, so it's a moot point.
Regardless, you were provided with adequate resources to conclude that Dr. Sabom's statement was in error, and rather than investigate the truth of the matter, you chose to attack those that opposed his claim.
(November 6, 2018 at 8:29 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(November 3, 2018 at 4:58 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: And it's dishonest of you to bring up my quote of Sabom via Augustine as Augustine was in that passage drawing attention to how Sabom's claim was wrong, so trying to pass it off as something that I agreed with is just lying by quoting out of context. So, no, you didn't just pass off somebody else's claim. It became your claim when you restated Sabom's conclusions and then went on to aggressively defend his conclusions with additional arguments.
*emphasis mine*
That was not my purpose and you full well know it.
My point in quoting that was not to imply your agreement, but to show that what I said was clearly not MY CLAIM, but was a reference to A CLAIM...
Fine, if that was not your intent, it was not your intent. But nobody here can read your mind. The way you presented it looked as if you were representing it as Augustine's opinion.
(November 6, 2018 at 8:29 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(November 3, 2018 at 4:58 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: But what is your ultimate point here, Huggy? That you're not responsible for the statements you make if they are based on something outside yourself? That's ludicrous! You wouldn't accept that for Khemikal's statement about bees or Pandemonium's statement about Denmark if they were to assert it, so why should it hold any weight with you? Indeed, if we can't hold you responsible for the statements you make, then I guess all your bloviation about how superior you are to atheists and what a critical thinker you are don't hold water because you aren't the one responsible for the statements you've made.
*emphasis mine*
Strawman argument...
Khemikal's and Pandemonium's statement's were purely based on their own ass...
Show me where they referenced ANY source that supported their statements. If they did so, then we'd be talking about the same thing, but they didn't so what are you on about? Both of their statements directly contradict facts, what we're discussing cannot be described as absolute fact in either case.
It was a hypothetical question. I said 'if' that were the case, not that it was the case. So, it's not a straw man, but rather a hypothetical, which you obviously would rather not answer.
Quote:(Cardiologist Michael Sabom in his book Light and Death says that this occurred during a period in which her brain had completely ceased to function, but it is not clear that it occurred during this period.)
*emphasis mine*
(November 3, 2018 at 4:58 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: You are responsible for the things you post, the arguments you make, and the beliefs you hold. That is just common sense. So exactly what point are you trying to make here by pointing out that "the claim" was Dr. Sabom's? What the fuck are you on about, other than muddying up the waters with more irrelevancies and red herrings?
*emphasis mine*
(I guess the part in bold only applies when it's augments not based on the bell curve?)
If you don't know why I would defer to someone else with medical expertise that has clearly has done more extensive research on the subject than I have, then I really don't know what else to say to you...
Yeah, the guy who just happens to be in the medical profession, who did the research and wrote the book on Pam Reynolds experience (the basis of this debate), his conclusion is totally irrelevant...
Again, I never defended the bell curve, so that is simply a false allegation. Second, deferring to a medical professional is fine until you've been given reason to doubt that medical professional. (Not that you wouldn't have reason to doubt such a claim anyway.) But Dr. Sabom wasn't giving his opinion as a medical professional but rather as a journalist, so his qualifications as a medical professional are irrelevant to the question that was at issue. And not once, but twice, you continued to defend that opinion when you had been given information contrary to that opinion, including information that came from Dr. Sabom himself.
(November 6, 2018 at 8:29 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(November 3, 2018 at 4:58 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Now, you ignored my prior request for an acknowledgement that you were wrong when you stated that, "she was able to recount conversation and the equipment used to perform the surgery, this would have been during the time she was flatlined." Were you or were you not wrong when you said this?
I prefaced that statement with "According to"... which you conveniently left out.
Your complete statement was, "Well according to the medical staff performing the surgery, she was able to recount conversation and the equipment used to perform the surgery, this would have been during the time she was flatlined." It's not entirely grammatical, but "this would have been during the time she was flatlined," is an independent clause and would logically be read as your opinion, not that of the medical staff performing the surgery. You have given Dr. Sabom's statement that these events occurred while she was flatlined, but since you've also been shown that Dr. Sabom has contradicted himself on that score, and since he wasn't a part of the medical staff performing the surgery, his statement's don't acquit the claim. What evidence do you have that Dr. Spetzler and his surgical staff believed that these events occurred while she was flatlined?
(November 6, 2018 at 8:29 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: However to answer your question, the answer is no.
Is that a no that according to the medical staff performing the surgery she was flatlined during those events, or no that she wasn't flatlined during those events? If the former, then you haven't provided any evidence that this is true (that I recall). Given that the surgical staff as a whole are likely as aware of the relation of events in the surgery as Dr. Sabom is, I find it rather unlikely that their opinion was that she was flatlined during this period. If your statements weren't based upon those of the medical staff performing the surgery, but rather upon Dr. Sabom's reconstruction, then you would have been wrong, or at least, making an unsupported statement.
That leads to the natural question which is really at issue here. Do you believe that Pam Reynolds was flatlined when the events in question, the conversation about her veins and her seeing the bone saw being used, occurred?
ETA: I note that your response as to what the medical staff report was in response to the point that according to the Wikipedia article you quoted, there was some doubt as to whether Reynolds was flatlined during the events in question. As such, you were using the statement of what was true, allegedly according to the medical staff performing the surgery, as evidence to the belief that she was flatlined during those events. So in context you were attempting to argue that she was indeed flatlined during those events.
November 7, 2018 at 1:35 pm (This post was last modified: November 7, 2018 at 1:36 pm by Angrboda.)
Additonally, one has to ask, if you were only defending the claim as to what the medical staff said, why did you have issues with Augustine's paper? Even you noted it did not dispute that Dr. Sabom made those claims. It sounds to me like you're dishonestly adjusting your argument to avoid responsibility for having been proven wrong on the facts of whether Reynolds was flatlined during those events.
![[Image: Irony_Meter.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-S3ABmxhMHxY%2FTqoTPHKJmxI%2FAAAAAAAACIU%2FtVi6xjYUloE%2Fs1600%2FIrony_Meter.gif)
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
![[Image: au2K45C.png]](https://i.imgur.com/au2K45C.png)
![[Image: jB06QkI.png]](https://i.imgur.com/jB06QkI.png)
![[Image: XT5vELg.png]](https://i.imgur.com/XT5vELg.png)
![[Image: Qpn3P2h.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Qpn3P2h.png)
