RE: IF you deconverted in midlife, can you help?
October 28, 2018 at 1:39 am
(This post was last modified: October 28, 2018 at 1:41 am by Huggy Bear.)
(October 27, 2018 at 11:26 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(October 27, 2018 at 9:21 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: 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.
Wrong.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor...=104397005
Quote:
A Vision That Matches The Record
Afterwards, Reynolds assumed she had been hallucinating. But a year later, she mentioned the details to her neurosurgeon. Spetzler says her account matched his memory.
"From a scientific perspective," he says, "I have absolutely no explanation about how it could have happened."
Spetzler did not check out all the details, but Michael Sabom did. Sabom is a cardiologist in Atlanta who was researching near-death experiences.
"With Pam's permission, they sent me her records from the surgery," he says. "And long story short, what she said happened to her is actually what Spetzler did with her out in Arizona."
According to the records, there were 20 doctors in the room. There was a conversation about the veins in her left leg. She was defibrillated. They were playing "Hotel California." How about that bone saw? Sabom got a photo from the manufacturer — and it does look like an electric toothbrush.
How, Sabom wonders, could she know these things?
"She could not have heard [it], because of what they did to her ears," he says. "In addition, both of her eyes were taped shut, so she couldn't open her eyes and see what was going on. So her physical sensory perception was off the table."
(October 27, 2018 at 11:26 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(October 27, 2018 at 9:21 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Ok, I'll play along. If death is "'irreversible" then define 'resurrection'.
Take Lazarus for example, regardless if you believe the story of not, according to your definition of death, despite being dead and buried for four days, even until the point of decay, Lazarus was never actually "dead" seeing how his condition was reversed.
'Resurrrection' is an incoherent notion that Christards believe in for no particularly good reason. Death and brain death are medical and legal definitions which are supported by common usage. 'Resurrection' is a colloquial concept which is inconsistent with the legal and medical definition of death and brain death. Now unless you are going to argue that medical and legal definitions should be constrained by colloquial usage, you have no point. We also say that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, despite knowing that it does neither of these things. Such inconsistencies in language are only a mystery to you. What we do know is that the medical, legal, and common usage definitions of death and brain death agree and are at odds with your usage. Bringing up the fact that other usages of language which you didn't use are inconsistent with them gets you nothing. If you were arguing that Pam Reynolds was resurrected, I seem to have missed it. What you did claim was that persons like Pam Reynolds suffered brain death, and no matter what else you say, you are still wrong. Bringing up a peculiarity of usage concerning resurrection doesn't change that. Moreover, since Lazarus and other resurrected figures had their deaths reversed by supernatural means, unless you want to claim that Pam Reynolds' survival of death was supernatural, again you have no point. So, fine, if you like, referring to resurrection as bringing people back from the dead is technically not an accurate usage of the concept of death. It's a nonsense idea which has no coherent definition. How you think this improves your argument is a mystery to me. As far as I can see, you're acting like yet another moron who doesn't know what the 'N' in NDE stands for. It's right there in front of your face. Are you really this stupid? The larger point here, which you're desperately trying to evade with this nonsense, is that there are considerable differences between the state in which people experience NDEs and those that characterize people who are truly dead. If you give but a moments thought to the matter, it's apparent that for someone who by this time stinketh to be returned to life requires recreating biological structures that, at the time, are no longer existent. How you think such an act of supernatural creation has any bearing on the processes which are applicable to people who experience NDEs is something I'd dearly like to hear.
(If you really want to go whole hog on this, recreating the memories and such of a person isn't necessarily bringing them back to life. There is a very real philosophical issue as to what we mean by resurrecting someone because we have no complete understanding of what a person or self is, and the answer to such questions such as the transporter paradoxes. If we recreate your body, brain, memories and such multiple times in a Star Trek style transporter, have we created you or simply copied you? We don't have answers to such questions. Until we do, any notions of bringing 'someone' back from the dead by recreating what they would have been like prior to death is an unresolved philosophical puzzle. All this basically shows is that common usage doesn't offer clear guidance on metaphysics. Why should it? If you think it does, maybe you'd like to support that belief with an argument?)
Wait....
All I asked you for was a simple definition of 'resurrection' and instead of providing dictionary definitions like you did with 'death' you choose to filibuster?
From the exact same source you quoted from.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resurrect
Quote:resurrect verb
Definition of resurrect
1 : to raise from the dead
Now my point to you was, your definition of death doesn't allow for resurrection "supernatural" or otherwise, because no matter what, a person could never be defined as dead if the condition was reversed.
Got it?
