Psience Quest

"What I have said that I have not seen (repeatedly) is research that justifies their statements-"

Burst suppression can be seen on a monitor. You can see the brainwaves suppressed--9 seconds out of ten-- and then one second of burst. You can't have consciousness or thoughts without brainwaves, it isn't possible. If you want to say that it is possible, kindly come back with an expert who says you can. I don't have the time or the inclination to go searching for information that is not necessary. Burst suppression is the gold standard and there is obviously no other way to prevent awareness other than murdering the patient.

 "With respect to Reynolds' second set of observations, the problem is that accounts have not been consistent as to when exactly those observations occurred and what their content was. Sabom's original telling of Reynolds' NDE in Light and Dark (1998) provides no indication that Reynolds saw and felt her body "jump" twice. It does mention that she was shocked twice, and it is therefore possible that Reynolds' later mention of the two jumps was based on an inference from Sabom's (1998) statement about those shocks, if she read it, because I don't think that she made any documented mention of the jumps until well after Sabom's book was published."

I'm sorry but that's not right. My copy of Light and Death (not Dark) is in the attic and I'm not going up now, it's too hot. What I can tell you is that Sabom got a couple of things wrong, including that temperature you mentioned.

Pam reported everything to the surgeons as soon as she woke up. Karl Greene was the first to hear it and he went to Spetzler and then Spetzler paged the anaesthiologist. Her account of seeing her body jump and hearing the music was right there from the start, 3 years before Sabom was asked to check out her case. Karl Greene and Spetzler were witnesses to this.

Also, Sabom clearly indicates that "Hotel California" wasn't played until after Spetzler was done with Reynolds and her body had been resuscitated and substantially warmed. Here's the relevant part from Sabom:

That's right, Spetzler had left the room when she heard the music but she wasn't substantially warmed ...she was at a temperature of 27 degrees C and being defibrillated because her heart had stopped during the re-warming process. You can't be conscious at 27 degrees C and anyway she was effectively dead (Karl Greene)

I can tell you've been doing the rounds of all the information about the case on the web, including Keith Augustine's time line. The facts about the Reynolds case are (indeed) all in Rivas and Smit's book, "The Self does not die". If you can find anything specific in there which you think is not correct, stick it up and I'll see if I can provide an explanation. You won't find anything though, I assure you, they are meticulous researchers.

If you cannot deal with inquiry from a sympathetic interlocutor who is merely trying to get the facts straight, without jumping down their throat for having the audacity to get in the way of your inflexible understanding of things, you need to get a grip, badly. You exhibit the same dogmatism that I usually see only in debunkers.

That's over the top ! Where have I jumped down your throat, for heaven's sake ? 

You evidently aren't reading my posts very carefully, because the 27 degrees C figure reported in The Self Does not Die pertains to Reynolds' temperature at the time of defibrillation.

You seem to be trying to get me to account for every second of the operation for some reason but I wasn't there and anyway there's no need to. If you don't accept Pam's testimony that she heard the music at the same time she saw her body jump etc then leave the music out. They were playing that song in the operating theatre, fact ! When do you want her to have heard it ?

Doesn't matter anyway, because there's more than enough that's anomalous about her seeing and feeling her body jump. At that time she was being rewarmed at a temperature of 27 degrees (fact) and you can't be conscious at that temperature. Her heart had also stopped she was technically dead.

You seem to want me lay out in detail and account for every discrepancy between Sabom, Augustine and everyone else, until it satisfies you to the full. But you have the book and what is in the book is accurate. Either accept it or don't accept it but those are the facts. It has superseded Dr Michael Sabom's version to some degree but not entirely of course.

Edit: with reference to your persistent enquiries about burst suppression. If Hameroff, Woerlee, and the surgeons all accept that burst suppression removes any possibility of consciousness, why are you not prepared to accept that ? Think about it logically...how can lucid thoughts with reasoning and memory formation be formed without any electrical activity of the brain ?

Allow me to observe that, yet again, you don't seem to be reading my posts carefully or even completely.

No, I've read your posts carefully every time.

The strength of Reynolds' alleged anomalous veridical hearing of "Hotel California" as it's presented nowadays depends on her having been at 27 degrees C when it was heard, as The Self Does not Die makes clear. But if, as Sabom clearly maintains, the song did not play until after Reynolds' resuscitation when she was no longer at 27 degrees C but much warmer (again, per Sabom), then the argument for the view that that observation was anomalous is weakened.

Pam herself said that she heard the song when she was being defibrillated. Can you not understand that it's not particularly important about the song. Why do you keep using that as a benchmark ? The main anomalous event in the second part of her observations was the extraordinary fact that she was somehow consciously aware of being defibrillated twice when she was effectively dead. She was defibrillated at a temperature of 27 degrees C.

Again, you don't seem to be making serious efforts to comprehend what I write. I have no desire right now to again correct your misinterpretations or plain lack of knowledge of what I've written. To repeat, please do not reply to my posts unless you've read them fully and carefully.


Why do I have to start going back over this case in detail, just because you come on here with a request for yet another in depth analysis. Your position is illogical anyway. You've already purported to accept that something anomalous occurred...and then you moved on to her second set of observations with doubt in your mind ? Why ?

Secondly, to doubt the opinion of highly experienced anaesthesiologists who have told you factually, that burst suppression is the gold standard and then take issue with me (a layperson) and request that "I" go and find you cast iron 'proof' that burst suppression removes any possibility of consciousness, is frankly absurd.

Please go and ask the experts yourself ? Until you do, lets leave it there.

There is a problem with the formatting above which I can't rectify.

if anyone knew why there is a discrepancy between the Mayses' 2008 statements about the "clicks" to which Reynolds was exposed and Greene's statements on the same topic

It doesn't matter what the May's said in 2008, I haven't looked into that, why does it matter? We went to the definitive sources well after whatever Robert and Suzanne said, the surgeons themselves and Spetzler's published paper.

Wow, what a brilliant analytic approach! So for you, if someone accepts claim X that has some association with claim Y, he should just go ahead and uncritically accept claim Y without considering independent reasons for or against acceptance of it. Of course, I have already explained, at length, why I have raised some doubts about the second set of observations. How you can assert that you've read my posts carefully every time and yet ask the above-quoted questions is beyond me. Are you trolling?

That statement is so incredibly stupid, it's unbelievable. Claim "x" and claim "y" in this report are identical. Verified accurate paranormal observations when the physiological condition of the patient prohibited it !!

If you accept the first, then it doesn't matter whether or not you accept the second, you've already accepted that something paranormal occurred.

To accuse me of being a troll and not worth talking to on this topic, shows me that you are the troll, not me. You are also very stupid, quite rude and wholly illogical, and there I'll leave it.

Moderators: I can't seem to make a post with normal sized format.

ParapsychResearcher Wrote:To understand who's actually "very stupid" in this exchange, consider that you, for example, alleged that I "request[ed]" that you do something, and then when I noted that I very clearly did no such thing, and highlighted what I actually asked for, you switched to essentially complaining that I shouldn't have asked for that, as if you hadn't initiated the dispute with the just mentioned allegation: "It doesn't matter what the May's said in 2008 . . . why does it matter?" By the way, you've apparently missed my statement concerning why it might matter--but no surprises there.

This suggests that you're so fantastically stupid that not only are you seemingly unable to understand anything that I write, you can't even keep track of your own claims.

As it happens, my academic work is primarily in intelligence research. And from my relevantly informed position, I can say with good confidence that you have a verbal IQ probably no more than a few points over 100, and that's pushing it.

"Claim 'x' and claim 'y' in this report are identical."

That should tell any reasonable person following this thread all they need to know. You truly are an imbecile.

As it happens, my academic work is primarily in intelligence research.

Intelligence research, you say ? Darn it, why didn't you say that at the beginning; I would have known you weren't actually a moron.

Let's try to stick to the maxim "Play the ball, not the man", guys, hey? "Your post was unresponsive and you did not seem to recognise my points. There is no point in responding" is fine. (I would be a hypocrite if I wrote otherwise because I have written similar responses myself). "Your IQ is barely above average" and "You are a moron" stretch our #1 rule of respect and no personal attacks past its breaking point.

(2019-07-24, 12:44 AM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Moderators: I can't seem to make a post with normal sized format.

I've edited your posts to fix them, tim. FYI, I did this by clicking the "View source" button in the editor (it's the icon at the far right of the bottom of the toolbar, a piece of paper with a folded over right corner), and then deleting the opening and closing "size", "font", and "color" tags (enclosed in square brackets - the closing ones with a preceding forward slash).

(2019-07-24, 06:15 AM)ParapsychResearcher Wrote: [ -> ]Also, if it's an option, please lock this thread.

Done.