Psience Quest

Your points are noted, Titus.  I agree that we don't need amalgams; I don't know why he didn't just stick with the Pam Reynolds case and leave the other two anonymous cases out.

However, the point I was trying to make was aimed at Max, who stated previously that such cases basically cannot happen...there aren't any, period. So it was a general point, that's all.

Hamilton was always kind enough to reply to my requests for information so I can't agree with the last part of your post but once again, I note what you say with interest.

(2018-07-12, 07:17 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Your points are noted, Titus.  I agree that we don't need amalgams; I don't know why he didn't just stick with the Pam Reynolds case and leave the other two anonymous cases out.

However, the point I was trying to make was aimed at Max, who stated previously that such cases basically cannot happen...there aren't any, period. So it was a general point, that's all.

Hamilton was always kind enough to reply to my requests for information so I can't agree with the last part of your post but once again, I note what you say with interest.

He also kindly replied to my requests for information, Tim, and as you can read in my review, I think this shows his underlying basic integrity. 

Nevertheless, he has disqualified himself as a reliable source of information and really will have to demonstrate that he's speaking the truth next time. Even if we believe, as I do, that he probably will not make the same mistake twice, we can't expect anyone to just assume that he has learned from it.

Whilst the surgery is discussed at (interminable) length, I’ve never really seen any discussion about the point during her (presumably lengthy) recovery, at which Pam first talked about her experience and to whom. Does anyone have that info? (sorry if this is old ground for some of you).

(2018-07-13, 06:15 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Whilst the surgery is discussed at (interminable) length, I’ve never really seen any discussion about the point during her (presumably lengthy) recovery, at which Pam first talked about her experience and to whom. Does anyone have that (sorry if this is old ground for some of you).

As far as I know, no one has considered this important enough to reconstruct.
However, to my knowledge, nobody has suggested that Pam was simply given the verifiable information about the surgical procedure (or simply overheard people talking about it) during her recovery, if that is what you're insinuating. Not even Gerald Woerlee! That has never been a serious option for any commentator, as fas as I know. 

The case is discussed in The Self Does Not Die, Chapter 3. You might want to take a look at it.

(2018-07-13, 06:59 AM)Titus Rivas Wrote: [ -> ]As far as I know, no one has considered this important enough to reconstruct.
However, to my knowledge, nobody has suggested that Pam was simply given the verifiable information about the surgical procedure (or simply overheard people talking about it) during her recovery, if that is what you're insinuating. Not even Gerald Woerlee! That has never been a serious option for any commentator, as fas as I know. 

The case is discussed in The Self Does Not Die, Chapter 3. You might want to take a look at it.

I find this problematic. It makes the minute dissection of the surgery details laughable imo. 

Pam was in showbiz if I recall...

(2018-07-12, 11:06 PM)Titus Rivas Wrote: [ -> ]He also kindly replied to my requests for information, Tim, and as you can read in my review, I think this shows his underlying basic integrity. 

Nevertheless, he has disqualified himself as a reliable source of information and really will have to demonstrate that he's speaking the truth next time. Even if we believe, as I do, that he probably will not make the same mistake twice, we can't expect anyone to just assume that he has learned from it.

Thanks, Titus. It's a very good review which I read several years ago.

"Nevertheless, he has disqualified himself as a reliable source of information"

My take on it is that the way he presented the information was the problem. Apparently there was a conversation about an 'engagement' overheard (He told me this) during one of these 'procedures' but it wasn't an aneurysm. I get the feeling that he simply couldn't resist including it in some way because of how remarkable it was but because of the patient's desire to remain anonymous he couldn't publish it alone.

He may regret that now, I don't and can't know, but it wasn't a good idea.

(2018-07-13, 07:09 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]I find this problematic. It makes the minute dissection of the surgery details laughable imo. 

Pam was in showbiz if I recall...

Frankly Malf, I'm baffled by this short and absolutely ridiculous post.

Just to be certain I'm interpreting your thoughts correctly....you want to speculate that as soon as Pam opened her eyes, the surgeons accidentally fed her
all the "information" verbally ?

And because she was a composer/arranger she was naturally predisposed to making up stories ?
This is exactly what you said about the Lloyd Rudy case, that the surgeons accidentally fed the patient the information. Well debunked, malf, you nailed it

(2018-07-13, 07:09 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]I find this problematic. It makes the minute dissection of the surgery details laughable imo. 

Pam was in showbiz if I recall...

I agree with tim, malf. 

The debunkers have lost the debate about such cases, and it wouldn't hurt if they simply admitted that.

(2018-07-13, 11:07 AM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Frankly Malf, I'm baffled by this short and absolutely ridiculous post.

Just to be certain I'm interpreting your thoughts correctly....you want to speculate that as soon as Pam opened her eyes, the surgeons accidentally fed her
all the "information" verbally ?

Recovery is rarely as neat as a moment of eye opening. And I very much doubt the surgeons were present at such a moment in any event. 

I can speculate a dozen ways small snippets of the surgery could be consciously (or even subconsciously) subsumed to the patient’s awareness. I would agree that it might seem like an unusual, unlikely scenario, but that would be in line with the comparative rarity of such anecdotes.

That is one of the reasons why these stories aren’t in the same class of evidence as a well documented AWARE hit, for example.

(2018-07-13, 09:50 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Recovery is rarely as neat as a moment of eye opening. And I very much doubt the surgeons were present at such a moment in any event. 

I can speculate a dozen ways small snippets of the surgery could be consciously (or even subconsciously) subsumed to the patient’s awareness. I would agree that it might seem like an unusual, unlikely scenario, but that would be in line with the comparative rarity of such anecdotes.

That is one of the reasons why these stories aren’t in the same class of evidence as a well documented AWARE hit, for example.

But they are never going to be. There is no silver bullet. There is no definitive proof. There is only the comparatively rare case which grabs the attention and is then dissected because it is so controversial. The pillars of skepticism are always accusations of fabrication and/or delusion. It may be impossible to rule out either completely, in every case, and so the skeptic has the ultimate final posture of "no evidence" because of what they deem to constitute evidence. But when it is argued that such evidence would be sufficient for a court of law, for example, or for mundane scientific research, then the sceptic comes back with the other stand-by: extraordinary claims ...

Anecdotal evidence is messy. All of the Ian Stevenson - meticulously researched and collated - evidence suggesting reincarnation is anecdotal. All of the NDE stories, all of the death-bed visitations, terminal lucidity, "peak in darien" experiences too. None are scientifically testable or repeatable on demand therefore we have to rely on anecdotes. To be able to dismiss them all with a wave, citing "not evidence" is a cop-out to prejudice.