2018-03-30, 04:56 PM
Here it is: http://godlesshaven.com/ep-9-is-there-an...augustine/
Three things stand out to me. First of all, he says that the Pam Reynolds case is touted the most as the best individual NDE report that provide evidence of survival. While this was certainly true a decade ago, is the situation the same today? It might very well be, and I'm asking all of you here. Because at least in my view of things, the clear winner in that regard is the semi-hit in the AWARE study. In that case, we know that the person had their NDE during cardiac arrest, and so we know that their brain was not expected to be functioning when the person made the accurate and verified OBE observations. Pam Reynolds on the other hand, as Keith demonstrates when writing on the topic, actually had a (somewhat) functioning brain while she made her accurate and verified OBE observations, as they occurred long before she was flat-lined. So are survivalists still clinging to the Pam Reynolds case even though the semi-hit in the AWARE study is what actually made Sam Parnia himself change his mind?
As a side note on that topic, I haven't read his book, and maybe someone else here has. Does he or any other contributor in that book comment on this semi-hit in the AWARE study there?
Secondly, he's saying that cross-cultural reports of NDEs do not count as valid if the person is reporting their NDE on a survey that is related to the west and written in English. I've never heard of such reasoning before - do you think this is a valid reasoning? Is there similar requirements in other disciplines that study things cross-culturally? I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm just genuinely wondering.
Thirdly, he continues to have a very crude understanding of the transmission theory, and see it as a very one-dimensional dynamic going on. Chris Carter has pointed this out to him before and even written about it extensively in his second book, but it appears that Keith Augustine still doesn't want to seriously consider the more charitable interpretations of this theory. Why is that the case? Why does he insist that the mountains of evidence for the exceedingly intricate relationship between mental states and brain states in everyday life somehow count against the transmission theory, when all of that evidence is explicitly predicted by it?
That our cognitive experience as humans is closely interwoven with the on-goings in the brain is no more indicative that the mind couldn't function without the brain than the fact that our human body is closely connected with our ability to move around. Just like people can't think very good when their brain is compromised, people can't move around when their body is compromised. And yet, just like our cognitive abilities expand exponentially in an NDE, so does our ability to move around. You can be mentally handicapped as a human being, and yet, as NDErs report, you can understand absolutely everything and have a complete panoramic life review with access to all information simultaneously when you stop the role-playing exercise of being a human. In the same way, you can be in a wheelchair here while you're role-playing as a human, and yet, as some NDErs report, once you're out of the body you can fly around like Peter Pan faster than the speed of light in every direction simultaneously.
So to say that you can't think without a brain is about as impressive as saying that you can't move around without a body, since while you are role-playing as a human your ability to move around is contingent on the state of your body and your ability to think is contingent on the state of your brain. But once you leave those confines, why should either your brain or your body have an impact on your ability to think or to move around anymore? You are no longer role-playing as a human being.
Three things stand out to me. First of all, he says that the Pam Reynolds case is touted the most as the best individual NDE report that provide evidence of survival. While this was certainly true a decade ago, is the situation the same today? It might very well be, and I'm asking all of you here. Because at least in my view of things, the clear winner in that regard is the semi-hit in the AWARE study. In that case, we know that the person had their NDE during cardiac arrest, and so we know that their brain was not expected to be functioning when the person made the accurate and verified OBE observations. Pam Reynolds on the other hand, as Keith demonstrates when writing on the topic, actually had a (somewhat) functioning brain while she made her accurate and verified OBE observations, as they occurred long before she was flat-lined. So are survivalists still clinging to the Pam Reynolds case even though the semi-hit in the AWARE study is what actually made Sam Parnia himself change his mind?
As a side note on that topic, I haven't read his book, and maybe someone else here has. Does he or any other contributor in that book comment on this semi-hit in the AWARE study there?
Secondly, he's saying that cross-cultural reports of NDEs do not count as valid if the person is reporting their NDE on a survey that is related to the west and written in English. I've never heard of such reasoning before - do you think this is a valid reasoning? Is there similar requirements in other disciplines that study things cross-culturally? I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm just genuinely wondering.
Thirdly, he continues to have a very crude understanding of the transmission theory, and see it as a very one-dimensional dynamic going on. Chris Carter has pointed this out to him before and even written about it extensively in his second book, but it appears that Keith Augustine still doesn't want to seriously consider the more charitable interpretations of this theory. Why is that the case? Why does he insist that the mountains of evidence for the exceedingly intricate relationship between mental states and brain states in everyday life somehow count against the transmission theory, when all of that evidence is explicitly predicted by it?
That our cognitive experience as humans is closely interwoven with the on-goings in the brain is no more indicative that the mind couldn't function without the brain than the fact that our human body is closely connected with our ability to move around. Just like people can't think very good when their brain is compromised, people can't move around when their body is compromised. And yet, just like our cognitive abilities expand exponentially in an NDE, so does our ability to move around. You can be mentally handicapped as a human being, and yet, as NDErs report, you can understand absolutely everything and have a complete panoramic life review with access to all information simultaneously when you stop the role-playing exercise of being a human. In the same way, you can be in a wheelchair here while you're role-playing as a human, and yet, as some NDErs report, once you're out of the body you can fly around like Peter Pan faster than the speed of light in every direction simultaneously.
So to say that you can't think without a brain is about as impressive as saying that you can't move around without a body, since while you are role-playing as a human your ability to move around is contingent on the state of your body and your ability to think is contingent on the state of your brain. But once you leave those confines, why should either your brain or your body have an impact on your ability to think or to move around anymore? You are no longer role-playing as a human being.