Ex-Stargate Head Ed May Unyielding Re Materialism, Slams Dean Radin |341|

Yes, but what is correct (information) and what is not correct, is important on a public forum. Death is of course a process but that process begins when the heart stops pumping and circulation/respiratory effort ceases. That person is then dead and is described as being dead my medical professionals in medical facilities. This is simply a fact and facts need to be acknowledged, No ?

If a patient is found lying in a hospital bed with no heartbeat, pulse etc, medics don't describe the patient as being not quite dead or nearly dead. They don't say... this patient is in the process of dying. They say Shit ! this patient is dead, get the crash cart quick and all hell breaks loose. The reason why some posters on here keep playing with semantics is because it suits their theories to do so. So no I can't agree with you that it's an arbitrary choice. Thanks for your input anyway.
Did you read the interview that Typoz linked?

http://www.spiegel.de/international...ection-is-a-medical-possibility-a-913075.html

Sticking to a rigid definition of death is silly and outdated in the light of recent research. Clearly there are processes that start and up to a certain point this processes can be stopped and patients revived. Understanding the process is important. Nobody tries to revive someone with rigor mortis, for example.


(Cue someone finding a link to someone with rigor mortis reviving :D. If anyone finds one I guarantee it will be poorly documented)
 
Death is a process and a liminal state and like pretty much everything else in existence has fuzzy boundaries leading to arbitrary choice about definition.

There's no sense in arguing over definitions with Max or anyone else... if you define death a certain way, then that's how it's defined. If you define death to mean: never came back ever... then nobody who is resuscitated ever died. The question is not: "which definition is right?" Because both are an arbitrary choice. The appropriate question is: "which definition is most useful in the present context?"

Aye, it's an important line in the sand for those who use Parnia's redefinition of 'cardiac arrest' as 'dead', to claim that the NDE must therefore be a glimpse of the afterlife. If you were not alive, then you must have been in the 'after'-life.

I totally get that, and I totally get why they want to defend this line in the sand. I'm also sorry to have to keep challenging this claim - and it's NOT because I want to challenge people's personal beliefs in an afterlife. It's simply because I want to discuss what is actually going on in the brain during cardiac arrest (and there really is lots going on in the brain during cardiac arrest). Because I believe this brain state must have a bearing on these experiences. Why..?

Because these experiences are strongly correlated with the same time period that the patient was in cardiac arrest, thus the physiology of cardiac arrest is of great interest in understanding the NDE, and how the brain may work.

We desperately need more research into what is going on in the brain during cardiac arrest, and that will undoubtedly unearth new mechanisms which may be involved in these experiences.
 
I think - I hope - that parapsychology may some time produce the most necessary - desperately needed! - invention or technique which will allow people to see each other beyond the veil of scary pictures and labels imposed by their animosity, and notice that all of them share a common humaneness. The core of our problem that all sides of the conflict consist of good people who percieve their opponents, and everything they stand for, as sheer evil.

Hurm, Roberta, I like you both, despite a lot of disagreements with either of you. And now, try to remember the moment you liked each other. Recall it the next time when you political preferences will start filling you with a fiery ire. Recall that we all strive for the goodness, but by ways notably different. Try to understand, not to condemn.

If this is repeated massively, and by many, maybe the sad need for armed struggle - until now, the inevitable and painful component of societal development - will disappear.

I suspect, however, that drive for understanding is in shortage nowadays, so new battles are ahead...

This might surprise you both - but I actually quite like Hurm!
 
Aye, it's an important line in the sand for those who use Parnia's redefinition of 'cardiac arrest' as 'dead', to claim that the NDE must therefore be a glimpse of the afterlife. If you were not alive, then you must have been in the 'after'-life.

I totally get that, and I totally get why they want to defend this line in the sand. I'm also sorry to have to keep challenging this claim - and it's NOT because I want to challenge people's personal beliefs in an afterlife. It's simply because I want to discuss what is actually going on in the brain during cardiac arrest (and there really is lots going on in the brain during cardiac arrest). Because I believe this brain state must have a bearing on these experiences. Why..?

Because these experiences are strongly correlated with the same time period that the patient was in cardiac arrest, thus the physiology of cardiac arrest is of great interest in understanding the NDE, and how the brain may work.

We desperately need more research into what is going on in the brain during cardiac arrest, and that will undoubtedly unearth new mechanisms which may be involved in these experiences.

So are you trying to argue that the brain basically produces near death experiences? And what do you mean by 'lots is going on in the brain during cardiac arrest'?

I agree we need more research, I'm not sure what mechanisms you expect to find. There are still aspects of certain near death experiences that a brain cannot create. (Seeing people you didn't know had died, going to another room etc).
 
Name me another Parapsychologist that accepts ESP as real that you could define as a reductionist materialist?

The ones that don't accept it usually are though!

If by "physicalist"/"materialist" you mean any theory that doesn't require consciousness as a fundamental primitive -- Check out the Parapsychology Handbook and the 2 volume ESP - specifically volume 2 which has a host of materialist/physicalist theories.

IIRC Tart even notes a large number, if not majority at the time of writing, of parapsychologists are materialists in the intro to End of Materialism.
 
He died approximately 10 times and 10 times they brought him back. If he wasn't dead they wouldn't have had to bring him back. Crash teams don't fight to bring people back from "not dead."

Not that it makes any difference to what I'm saying, but although I can't check for certain what you are claiming medical professionals report, I'm skeptical about what you say...

Here is an example code form used in the USA... note on the right hand side of the form where they actually record when someone has died.... it's when they have really died... not when they are in cardiac arrest...

http://www.heart.org/idc/groups/hea...cm/@hcm/documents/downloadable/ucm_319598.pdf
 
So are you trying to argue that the brain basically produces near death experiences? And what do you mean by 'lots is going on in the brain during cardiac arrest'?

I agree we need more research, I'm not sure what mechanisms you expect to find. There are still aspects of certain near death experiences that a brain cannot create. (Seeing people you didn't know had died, going to another room etc).

Apparently you've not understood what I've been writing on here since... is it 2011?

I've been absolutely clear that the brain is not very well shielded, and is not isolated from magnetic fields, or able to be separated from the QM/classical reality we all inhabit.
 
Hurm is proof that we can all get along even if we have very different ideas and don't react with aggression. Give people a chance, they might surprise you. (Probably will!)

Respect is due. ;;/?
If I could like this a thousand times, I certainly would!!!;;/?
 
Aye, it's an important line in the sand for those who use Parnia's redefinition of 'cardiac arrest' as 'dead', to claim that the NDE must therefore be a glimpse of the afterlife. If you were not alive, then you must have been in the 'after'-life.

I totally get that, and I totally get why they want to defend this line in the sand. I'm also sorry to have to keep challenging this claim - and it's NOT because I want to challenge people's personal beliefs in an afterlife. It's simply because I want to discuss what is actually going on in the brain during cardiac arrest (and there really is lots going on in the brain during cardiac arrest). Because I believe this brain state must have a bearing on these experiences. Why..?

Because these experiences are strongly correlated with the same time period that the patient was in cardiac arrest, thus the physiology of cardiac arrest is of great interest in understanding the NDE, and how the brain may work.

We desperately need more research into what is going on in the brain during cardiac arrest, and that will undoubtedly unearth new mechanisms which may be involved in these experiences.
I think the data is pointing in the opposite direction... e.g. NDE research (Parnia and others) suggest there are wide differences in the medical condition of these NDErs... some w/ cardiac arrest for a min or two... some for 7-10 min... but NDEs reported are the similar in the ways we're talking about. add to that the NDEs that occur in non-cardiac arrest and we're back to the old problem or skeptics trying to harmonize very different neurological states in order to jam it back into some old model.

I think this is why folks like Parnia get tired of talking about this silly "they weren't really dead" argument... but I kinda feel like we're going in circles here. maybe we should use Ed May's definition :)
 
I think the data is pointing in the opposite direction... e.g. NDE research (Parnia and others) suggest there are wide differences in the medical condition of these NDErs... some w/ cardiac arrest for a min or two... some for 7-10 min... but NDEs reported are the similar in the ways we're talking about. add to that the NDEs that occur in non-cardiac arrest and we're back to the old problem or skeptics trying to harmonize very different neurological states in order to jam it back into some old model.

I think this is why folks like Parnia get tired of talking about this silly "they weren't really dead" argument... but I kinda feel like we're going in circles here. maybe we should use Ed May's definition :)

Can't NDE type experiences also occur when there is an intense Fear of Death?

I lean toward survival of the Self as well, though I'm not sure these differences you mention would negate Max's theory?
 
Back
Top