Keith Augustine interview

Almost exclusively from this forum (and skeptiko when it covered these topics) and the wealth of expertise found here (and the relevant links from here also).

I don’t read many books these days other than P G Wodehouse

If that's the case, Malf why do you never believe anything you read here ?

No, I certainly wasn't trying to be funny.

In this instance, I think the question malf asked - when and to whom the patient first talked about her experience - would be essential in investigating the case.

If the question is answered in the book, that's fine (though my preference is always for "chapter and verse" citations). But your initial answer was "As far as I know, no one has considered this important enough to reconstruct." Obviously, that suggests it's not answered in the book. So I can understand why malf would have asked where tim's information came from.

I'm not keen on reflexive "debunking" myself, but when someone is asking legitimate questions I think it's in everyone's interest to answer them.

All very reasonable and I agree that we should not ignore valid avenues of sceptical inquiry. But to some, this is a game and the name of the game is doubt. There are bound to be areas of uncertainty - especially with anecdotal evidence. Sometimes you just have to rely on common sense and what Titus, Tim and others have maintained would be considered common sense in most circumstances. The fact that these circumstances involve matters that oppose a certain worldview and pretending that the kind of nit-picking that serves as scepticism is valid can be frustrating to the more open-minded observers. So it is not whether that particular question was, or was not, answered in the book but whether the question is of particular relevance or importance. My opinion would be that it is one of those unwarranted speculations which is intended to create doubt rather than to uncover something relevant.

No, I certainly wasn't trying to be funny.

In this instance, I think the question malf asked - when and to whom the patient first talked about her experience - would be essential in investigating the case.

If the question is answered in the book, that's fine (though my preference is always for "chapter and verse" citations). But your initial answer was "As far as I know, no one has considered this important enough to reconstruct." Obviously, that suggests it's not answered in the book. So I can understand why malf would have asked where tim's information came from.

I'm not keen on reflexive "debunking" myself, but when someone is asking legitimate questions I think it's in everyone's interest to answer them.

We were talking about the whole order of events, not just about the first person she told her experience to. At least that's how I understood malf's question. And when I said that I knew about Karl Greene's testimony, it was simply because his testimony is indeed in the book. I didn't mean to say that I knew the whole order of events during her recovery after all, just that his testimony had not escaped my attention, contrary to what malf was insinuating. Smithy and I have even been personally in touch with Greene, as anyone can read in The Self Does Not Die. 

But enough already. I can't stand the so-called "skeptical" atitude any longer. I've really had my share of that, sorry. I won't respond to any such doubts or concerns anymore. It's not my cup of tea. I consider skepticism based on a materialist world view obscurantist and silly.

So I don't consider it my task to engage with skeptics anymore. My nonsense radar and irrationality allergy make it simply too unpleasant for me.

In this instance, I think the question Malf asked - when and to whom the patient first talked about her experience - would be essential in investigating the case.

For heaven's sake why ? Is the first person she talked to going to tell her that the bone saw they used to open her skull made a high pitched unpleasant noise and it looked like an electric toothbrush ?

It's impossible to know. A discussion with the patient about the details of a procedure, and the tools used, wouldn't be uncommon before surgery. I think I'd be very interested in the saw that was going to be used to flap open my skull. Such conversations may be with the surgeon, the surgeon's theatre nurse or even possibly her family doctor.

Is the first person she talked to going to inform her that the veins and arteries in one of her legs are too small to get a canula in ? 

Possibly yes. At the very least the patient will need (and probably want) to know why both sides of her groin had been opened up, rather than just one side. This detail may have already been supplied to the family also.

Is the first person she talked to going to tell her that Hotel California was playing in the OR when her heart stopped twice more...

I'm intrigued that surgeons working to background music had the recall, at some point down the track, of what tune was playing and at what time over the long hard day... Remember there was nothing particularly memorable about this case, or the song, until some time after.  I wonder who was the first to bring The Eagles up and who confidently confirmed it? Those early interactions would be fascinating to listen to, but lost to time unfortunately. Clearly the surgeon and patient had already bonded over their shared love of music... who knows where that conversation went?

If that's the case, Malf why do you never believe anything you read here ?

What haven't I believed?

What haven't I believed?

I don't know.

I consider skepticism based on a materialist world view obscurantist and silly... My nonsense radar and irrationality allergy make it simply too unpleasant for me.

A note on this. I'm not sure about "materialist worldview" but due to the converging lines of strong evidence that suggest conscious awareness is a property of biological systems, it's difficult to reconcile these accounts with that baseline. I guess it depends on what sort of evidence one immerses oneself in and how we can assess the quality of such evidence, but I wouldn't call it kneejerk handwaving.