How many GODS do you have?

[Mike Cl]

Yeah, I'm that stubbornly stupid. I can't help it...

Joe....Joe...that was not aimed at you. :))  That was aimed at Airk.  You are the exact opposite of that.   don't know how that happened--clumsy fingers?????

[josephpalazzo]

Joe....Joe...that was not aimed at you. :))  That was aimed at Airk.  You are the exact opposite of that.   don't know how that happened--clumsy fingers?????

It's fine. I took your post as sarcasm, and replied in kind. No harm done...:-)

[Simon Moon]

Ok. then.

Put in this way Baruch.
Suppose you are a doctor.
You have a chap that died in front of you.
No blood+oxygen run through his head for the last 15-20 minutes.
In the meantime you and other medical staff try your very best to bring him back to life.
After sometime the chap come back to life and describe not only what you were doing to save him but even what you were thinking.

Is this anecdotal evidence?

Yes, the patient's account of events is anecdotal. The doctor's account, in that their patient was revived from near death, was not anecdotal.

OK, let's look at this story as you are describing. Although, I question that it happened like you said.

First of all, death is a physical process, not a single event, as in; one moment you are alive, the next you are dead. So, the statement that the patient "died  in front of you" is not accurate.

Second, in a hospital situation, there would be very little time that there would be "no blood+oxygen run through his head", especially not for 15-20 minutes. You understand that doctors would be breathing and pumping blood for a patient under the circumstances. Have you ever heard the terms "Intubation" and "cardiopulmonary resuscitation"? These are the medical terms for very effective methods for breathing and assisting blood flow for patients.

If the patient is in surgery, the process is even more effective, in that, the patient is connected to a heart-lung machine at all times.

So, where is this period of 15-20 minutes of "no blood+oxygen run through his head" for the patient?

In the meantime you and other medical staff try your very best to bring him back to life.

What do you think happens during the process of the medical staff "trying their best to bring you back to life"? They are breathing and assisting blood flow for the patient. Again, no loss of oxygen or blood to the brain. And again, the patient is not dead yet, because death is a process. It's not like turning off a light switch.

After sometime the chap come back to life and describe not only what you were doing to save him but even what you were thinking.

No, the patient was revived from NEAR DEATH. He was in the process of dying, when medical science prevented that process from continuing, and revived the patient.

During the preceding time of near death, the patient's brain was in crisis. When he is revived, his brain tries to fill in the missing time with images, sounds, speech from his memories. I am sure the vast majority of patients have seen enough medical dramas on TV and movies, to create false memories based on them.

Memory does not work the way you think it does. It is not like the brain has a bunch of fully intact videos of your past, that every time you remember an event, that video plays. Memory it more like a relational database.

Your knowledge of modern medicine and human memory is, lets say, a bit lacking. I'm being a bit charitable there.

[Baruch]

Ok. then.

Put in this way Baruch.
Suppose you are a doctor.
You have a chap that died in front of you.
No blood+oxygen run through his head for the last 15-20 minutes.
In the meantime you and other medical staff try your very best to bring him back to life.
After sometime the chap come back to life and describe not only what you were doing to save him but even what you were thinking.

Is this anecdotal evidence?

Yes.  But I accept anecdotal evidence.  Others here are phobic to subjective experience.  Nightmares perhaps?  Don't want to distract by refuting your semantics, point by point.  And not my agenda anyway ;-)  For me, objective experience has to pass thru subjective experience, or it doesn't happen at all.  That makes subjective experience a-priori, not a-posteriori.  Kant is incorrect and dated.  I don't accept Pythagoras or Plato.  I can tolerate a little Aristotle.

[Baruch]

You made up that story. Where's the evidence of that happening?

Based on Behaviorism, human beings have no thoughts, no personhood.  They are a stimulus/response mechanism same as a door bell.  Yes, we now can see brain waves and other brain activity.  But it is an assumption that objective activity has anything to do with thought or personhood.  Hence the "hard problem" of consciousness.  The dualism of Descartes is still a problem.  Spinoza's solution to that is still too advanced for contemporary thought.

[Simon Moon]

Yes.  But I accept anecdotal evidence.

So do I, for certain claims.

If a friend says they say a poodle walking on its hind legs, I will believe their anecdotal account.

If the same friend says they saw a poodle drive a car, rob a bank, land in a flying saucer, I will not believe those anecdotal accounts.

For me, objective experience has to pass thru subjective experience, or it doesn't happen at all.  That makes subjective experience a-priori, not a-posteriori.

Of course we are all subject to our subjective interpretations of objective reality. But does that mean everyone's subjective experiences of objective reality are evidence of the events they report?

If so, why do we lock people up for delusional behavior?

[Baruch]

So do I, for certain claims.

If a friend says they say a poodle walking on its hind legs, I will believe their anecdotal account.

If the same friend says they saw a poodle drive a car, rob a bank, land in a flying saucer, I will not believe those anecdotal accounts.

Of course we are all subject to our subjective interpretations of objective reality. But does that mean everyone's subjective experiences of objective reality are evidence of the events they report?

If so, why do we lock people up for delusional behavior?

Not all subjective experiences have the same quality.  But all subjective experiences are problematic.  Such as the supposed recent demonstration of the non-constancy of the speed of light in vacuum (in Swiss Alps I think).  For some people that was confirmation bias.  They don't accept the dogma that the speed of light in vacuum is constant.  But further analysis (objectivity) cleared it up, that the experiment was flawed, and demonstrated the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum, not something else.  Sometimes it can take decades for bad experiments to be clarified.  We assume that experiments, being controlled are 100% reliable.  But the experimenters are not as reliable.  In fact, that is why there is the popularity of Kuhn, regarding paradigm shifts in science.  It is much better to disconfirm, than to confirm, because of the natural bias of human error.

Mostly since the 1970s, the US doesn't even lock up the criminally insane.  We put them out as medication dependent out-patients.

How you accept anecdotal evidence is up to you.  Some would deny all anecdotal evidence.  For others, it matches their confirmation bias ;-)  A visitation by Jesus is regarded as less credible than a visitation by space aliens for example.

[Blackleaf]

Memory does not work the way you think it does. It is not like the brain has a bunch of fully intact videos of your past, that every time you remember an event, that video plays. Memory it more like a relational database.

Yeah, the way memories work is pretty interesting. Think back to any event in your memories, whether recent or distant, and you'll likely remember it in third person. Of course, we view the world from a first person perspective, so the fact that our memories take us out of our own bodies for some reason is already a strike against the reliability of human memory. It has also been theorized that memories are reconstructive; that your brain actively rebuilds your memories when you attempt to recall them. There is a lot of evidence to suggest this, showing that memories can change significantly over time. We don't only lose details, but sometimes we'll add new details to our memories, which may or may not reflect the real events the memories are based on.

[Baruch]

Yeah, the way memories work is pretty interesting. Think back to any event in your memories, whether recent or distant, and you'll likely remember it in third person. Of course, we view the world from a first person perspective, so the fact that our memories take us out of our own bodies for some reason is already a strike against the reliability of human memory. It has also been theorized that memories are reconstructive; that your brain actively rebuilds your memories when you attempt to recall them. There is a lot of evidence to suggest this, showing that memories can change significantly over time. We don't only lose details, but sometimes we'll add new details to our memories, which may or may not reflect the real events the memories are based on.

Is memory reliable?  Eyewitness testimony (memory) = 50% accurate vs perp lineup.  Memory also is how you maintain your identity, who you think you are.  If who you think you are at any given time is only 50% accurate ... sad.  Reconstruction?  Context means .. confabulation, not reconstruction.

[Cavebear]

I know that already.  Great revelator of deep medical knowledge.  When I found this out about a decade ago, I was flabbergasted at the misogyny of the medical profession.

Good, I didn't think your post suggested that.

[Cavebear]

Yes.  But I accept anecdotal evidence.  Others here are phobic to subjective experience.  Nightmares perhaps?  Don't want to distract by refuting your semantics, point by point.  And not my agenda anyway ;-)  For me, objective experience has to pass thru subjective experience, or it doesn't happen at all.  That makes subjective experience a-priori, not a-posteriori.  Kant is incorrect and dated.  I don't accept Pythagoras or Plato.  I can tolerate a little Aristotle.

Anecdotal evidence is never trustworthy.  I have personal family claims that I don't care to share, but the "evidence" on both sides was anecdotal and all unprovable.  I had to decline to choose.  Both sides were angry at me for "not trusting them".  That is a reason to refuse "anectodal evidence".  Ir isn't actually evidence of any sort.

You are "Null-A"?  Do tell.  Give some examples.

[SGOS]

First of all, death is a physical process, not a single event, as in; one moment you are alive, the next you are dead. So, the statement that the patient "died  in front of you" is not accurate.

People gravitate to the idea of being brought back to life.  I suspect that some doctors might enjoy telling a patient that he was dead on the operating table, just for the dramatic effect.  More likely what the doctor means is that a person was by some common measure considered legally dead.  Perhaps he stopped breathing.  I don't know this for sure, but I do know that people talking about their operations like to say their doctor told them they were dead, but brought back to life.

It's an amazing story and people like to talk about their amazing operations.  And if it requires a little bit of exaggeration to make the story better, well... what's the harm?  And in the spirit of friendly "one upsmanship," if one guy was brought back to life, the next one will say his soul floated around the operating room (which is something all souls are well known to do, before ascending up to the clouds).

But coming back to life is now an established meme, and it's not going to end soon.  People desperately don't want to die, and the pain is eased a bit when they think they can come back to life.  And there is a whole slew of internet stories saying it happened to someone that somebody knew.  Published books are part of the religion shelves in book stores, and who's going to argue with a book and especially if it's on the internet?

[Cavebear]

People gravitate to the idea of being brought back to life.  I suspect that some doctors might enjoy telling a patient that he was dead on the operating table, just for the dramatic effect.  More likely what the doctor means is that a person was by some common measure considered legally dead.  Perhaps he stopped breathing.  I don't know this for sure, but I do know that people talking about their operations like to say their doctor told them they were dead, but brought back to life.

It's an amazing story and people like to talk about their amazing operations.  And if it requires a little bit of exaggeration to make the story better, well... what's the harm?  And in the spirit of friendly "one upsmanship," if one guy was brought back to life, the next one will say his soul floated around the operating room (which is something all souls are well known to do, before ascending up to the clouds).

But coming back to life is now an established meme, and it's not going to end soon.  People desperately don't want to die, and the pain is eased a bit when they think they can come back to life.  And there is a whole slew of internet stories saying it happened to someone that somebody knew.  Published books are part of the religion shelves in book stores, and who's going to argue with a book and especially if it's on the internet?

One might also wonder why it has to be during surgery.  Wouldn't one expect to have the same experience while sleeping in bed?  Or does God only observe surgeries?  LOL!

[Arik]

One might also wonder why it has to be during surgery.  Wouldn't one expect to have the same experience while sleeping in bed?  Or does God only observe surgeries?  LOL!

Interesting point CB.

Obviously you haven't read much of the NDEs.
If you would have then you would find that many NDEs also happen outside hospitals but those have no witnesses which is the material that skeptics require 24/7 that is why I try to lead the skeptics towards the NDEs with witnesses.

[Arik]

People gravitate to the idea of being brought back to life.  I suspect that some doctors might enjoy telling a patient that he was dead on the operating table, just for the dramatic effect.  More likely what the doctor means is that a person was by some common measure considered legally dead.  Perhaps he stopped breathing.  I don't know this for sure, but I do know that people talking about their operations like to say their doctor told them they were dead, but brought back to life.

It's an amazing story and people like to talk about their amazing operations.  And if it requires a little bit of exaggeration to make the story better, well... what's the harm?  And in the spirit of friendly "one upsmanship," if one guy was brought back to life, the next one will say his soul floated around the operating room (which is something all souls are well known to do, before ascending up to the clouds).

But coming back to life is now an established meme, and it's not going to end soon.  People desperately don't want to die, and the pain is eased a bit when they think they can come back to life. And there is a whole slew of internet stories saying it happened to someone that somebody knew.  Published books are part of the religion shelves in book stores, and who's going to argue with a book and especially if it's on the internet?

I would say that most people during their NDEs clearly do not want to come back into their body.
Why would they considering that to be free from the body constrain is so good?

The very few that wish to come back are usually parents worry for their young kids.


(red color mine)