Consciousness during CPR

YOU...don't have to take any case as confirmed. Do as you please, Raff.  Personally, I have no reason to believe that Laurin Bellg made the case up or told lies about it, but of course, it is possible. For what it's worth (not much to an excitable character like you appear to be) the people at IANDS described Laurin as impeccably honest and reliable/trustworthy 

No case on it's own can ever be "proof" of anything, but when you have hundreds of reports that broadly 'agree' with each other, then it becomes harder to dismiss them. Is it really likely that every single veridical case can be explained by error, fraud, or whatever Steve 001 can come up with ? 

Why not contact Dr Bellg and ask her yourself  ?

I can contact Bellg, and the result would be the same.

If she was somehow wrong (either mistake or, less probably, fruad) she'll still tell me that things went as we told her.

Is this psiENCE quest or not? Sciece isn't purely anectodal, never. I don't care about integrity, I'm pretty sure Bellg is a good person but she just might be wrong, I need a controlled environement

I can contact Bellg, and the result would be the same.

If she was somehow wrong (either mistake or, less probably, fruad) she'll still tell me that things went as we told her.

Is this psiENCE quest or not? Sciece isn't purely anectodal, never. I don't care about integrity, I'm pretty sure Bellg is a good person but she just might be wrong, I need a controlled environement

Raf, you sound like someone who's complaining about being sold a 'dodgy car' by the members of this forum, (or maybe just me alone), I don't know. I've never tried to 'sell' you anything. You take it or leave it, that's the deal.

This forum was established (not by me) but by proponents of psi that already accept that the mind is not created by the brain, a position I also subscribe to.

Nothing whatsoever in Parnia's poster (that seems to have wound you up like a clockwork fire engine) has changed anything regarding near death experiences or their authenticity.

You need "controlled" experimental proof of life after death and you want it now. I can't give it to you and neither can anyone else. 

If what's been presented to you on here is not in the slightest bit persuasive to you, then it's better that you go elsewhere, my friend.

Raf, you sound like someone who's complaining about being sold a 'dodgy car' by the members of this forum, (or maybe just me alone), I don't know. I've never tried to 'sell' you anything. You take it or leave it, that's the deal.

This forum was established (not by me) but by proponents of psi that already accept that the mind is not created by the brain, a position I also subscribe to.

Nothing whatsoever in Parnia's poster (that seems to have wound you up like a clockwork fire engine) has changed anything regarding near death experiences or their authenticity.

You need "controlled" experimental proof of life after death and you want it now. I can't give it to you and neither can anyone else. 

If what's been presented to you on here is not in the slightest bit persuasive to you, then it's better that you go elsewhere, my friend.

I'm only posting here to avoid disturbin other persons elsewhere, as this looks like a place where a skeptic can bring out all his ideas.

I avoid posting elsewhere to not violate any personal space, as far as I can tell skeptics are free on this part of the forum. I really don't have problems with any proponent here and I like most of them, truly, I don't want to upset anyone.

If one wants a more immediate confirmation of life after death, or at least a greater possibility of such, I would suggest visiting mediums rather than waiting for NDE research to confirm.

If one wants a more immediate confirmation of life after death, or at least a greater possibility of such, I would suggest visiting mediums rather than waiting for NDE research to confirm.

Or try a past-life regressionist. Yes, I know one can be sceptical. However, as the saying goes, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". Getting direct first-hand experience, for better or for worse, is worth thousands of pages of opinions.

I'm only posting here to avoid disturbin other persons elsewhere, as this looks like a place where a skeptic can bring out all his ideas.

I avoid posting elsewhere to not violate any personal space, as far as I can tell skeptics are free on this part of the forum. I really don't have problems with any proponent here and I like most of them, truly, I don't want to upset anyone.

Raff said > "as this looks like a place where a skeptic can bring out all his ideas."

Throwing any old "it could be", "it might be", "she's lying", "he's biased" is not sound scepticism, Raff. There aren't too many genuine sceptics left (IMHO) but they at least try to come up with reasonable objections. Laurin Bellg has no reason to lie but of course that still doesn't prove anything.

Raff said > "as this looks like a place where a skeptic can bring out all his ideas."

Throwing any old "it could be", "it might be", "she's lying", "he's biased" is not sound scepticism, Raff. There aren't too many genuine sceptics left (IMHO) but they at least try to come up with reasonable objections. Laurin Bellg has no reason to lie but of course that still doesn't prove anything.

Sorry but it look clear to me that I expressed the possibility of fraud as very remote. It surely isn't the first thing that comes to my mind.

But she may just be wrong or naive, maybe both. Being naive is something I've noticed a lot in proponents, in particular regardin Eben Alexander's NDE. When skeptics "debunked" the rainbow event, proponents refuted it basing themselves on the word of Eben's family. I mean, is there a possibly more biased view than that of his family? If want to have proofs, we need to gather it from neutral witnesses

Sorry but it look clear to me that I expressed the possibility of fraud as very remote. It surely isn't the first thing that comes to my mind.

But she may just be wrong or naive, maybe both. Being naive is something I've noticed a lot in proponents, in particular regardin Eben Alexander's NDE. When skeptics "debunked" the rainbow event, proponents refuted it basing themselves on the word of Eben's family. I mean, is there a possibly more biased view than that of his family? If want to have proofs, we need to gather it from neutral witnesses

By plugging your ears and calling the experiencer "wrong" or "naive", you are doing nothing but grasping at straws. If you can't explain away someones NDE (and no, a tiny little brain surge during CPR which may be nothing at all; does not explain away Bellg's case) you go for the lowest hanging fruit and attack the experiencer/researcher. As for Eben's experience, the skeptics did nothing but launch a smear campaign, using tactics similar to what you have demonstrated lately. As I have stated on the AwareofAware blog, you seem to be brushing things about NDE's under a rug. However as I have also said, the rug is getting full.

Sorry but it look clear to me that I expressed the possibility of fraud as very remote. It surely isn't the first thing that comes to my mind.

But she may just be wrong or naive, maybe both. Being naive is something I've noticed a lot in proponents, in particular regardin Eben Alexander's NDE. When skeptics "debunked" the rainbow event, proponents refuted it basing themselves on the word of Eben's family. I mean, is there a possibly more biased view than that of his family? If want to have proofs, we need to gather it from neutral witnesses

Why do I bother ? I don't know. I'm just wasting my time.

By plugging your ears and calling the experiencer "wrong" or "naive", you are doing nothing but grasping at straws. If you can't explain away someones NDE (and no, a tiny little brain surge during CPR which may be nothing at all; does not explain away Bellg's case) you go for the lowest hanging fruit and attack the experiencer/researcher. As for Eben's experience, the skeptics did nothing but launch a smear campaign, using tactics similar to what you have demonstrated lately. As I have stated on the AwareofAware blog, you seem to be brushing things about NDE's under a rug. However as I have also said, the rug is getting full.

Honestly I just saw skeptics asking third parties about the rainbow, and getting answers that didn't fit in with Eben's story. The proponents then asked his family about it, and decided to believe them.

Personally, the wisest choice i think would have been to say that Eben's rainbow could not be verified as there were different and conflicting statements. Instead, naively, the proponents choose to just accept what the family told them.