Keith Augustine interview

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that suggests that consciousness is produced by the brain. There is a lot of evidence that consciousness may be influenced by the brain (and vice versa), as in: interactionist dualism. 

See: Why Materialists Do Not Have A Point

The question as to whom Pam Spoke to when she woke up is not answered in the book as far as I know  because it didn't need to be. It's an unnecessary line of enquiry as Doctors do not fill in their patients with the gory details of the operation and the tools that were utilised. It's absolute nonsense to suggest that they would. But the book does answer the important questions about the case in exquisite detail. 

However, it is not in doubt that Dr Karl Greene was the one there when she woke up. Several sources including Pam herself have told us this repeatedly. Why don't sceptics actually do some research instead of just throwing out any old speculation ? Scroll down to read Butch Lowery, Pam's husband at the time, inform us that when she came out of surgery, she was flat out cold. The information about Karl Greene follows.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dHyX...le&f=false 

Again, what malf asked about was not who Pam spoke to when she woke up, but "the point during her (presumably lengthy) recovery, at which Pam first talked about her experience and to whom".

I can see there is information about that in the link you've now provided, though for me Google is blocking access to some pages. I think it would have been better to provide him with that link when he asked. Even if you think a particular person isn't being genuine when they ask a question, the discussion is there to be read by others. I don't think uncommitted readers will find the exchange in the last few pages very enlightening.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that suggests that consciousness is produced by the brain. There is a lot of evidence that consciousness may be influenced by the brain (and vice versa), as in: interactionist dualism. 

See: Why Materialists Do Not Have A Point

I’m weary of folk presenting a dumb straw man version of any “-ism” so they can blow it down for their audience. I’ve also come to the conclusion that no model of reality is dafter than the one I’m favouring on any given day. 

Maybe you should be more open minded?

The interesting thing about interactionist dualism is that one has to deny the dumb physical one feat, but grant it one that is apparently just as miraculous. 

Happy to take the philosophical nasal gazing to another thread but I’m not great at putting my coin down with any confidence...

Well, I'm leaving this non-debate, everybody! Good luck to all of you.


Titus Rivas

Again, what Malf asked about was not who Pam spoke to when she woke up, but "the point during her (presumably lengthy) recovery, at which Pam first talked about her experience and to whom".

I can see there is information about that in the link you've now provided, though for me Google is blocking access to some pages. I think it would have been better to provide him with that link when he asked. Even if you think a particular person isn't being genuine when they ask a question, the discussion is there to be read by others. I don't think uncommitted readers will find the exchange in the last few pages very enlightening.

Again, what Malf asked about was not who Pam spoke to when she woke up, but "the point during her (presumably lengthy) recovery, at which Pam first talked about her experience and to whom".

malf Wrote: [url=https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-keith-augustine-interview?pid=19125#pid19125][/url]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).

You're just splitting hairs for no good reason, Chris. She talked to Karl Greene as I've said many times... who then went and got his boss, Spetzler.  Malf has had access to this information many times in the past.

"I don't think uncommitted readers will find the exchange in the last few pages very enlightening."

Definitely not from anything you've added, that's for sure. You're just confusing an issue that isn't really an issue at all and I don't know why you've decided to weigh in. Whilst you are of course welcome and free to do so, it's not really your 'bag', is it ?  Anyway, I'm busy with several things at the moment so I'll leave it there.

I think there is a familiar pattern emerging in this thread. When it gets down to the nitty-gritty, the sceptical tactic is to change the subject and talk about something else. Like talking about the pattern on the wallpaper or the colour of the tablecloth rather than the fact that there's an unexploded bomb in the room.

I'm afraid a lot of the time this place is far too tribal.

I'm afraid a lot of the time this place is far too tribal.

Not really. Sometimes, regrettably the obvious needs to be stated, lest it go astray.

I think there is a familiar pattern emerging in this thread. When it gets down to the nitty-gritty, the sceptical tactic is to change the subject and talk about something else. Like talking about the pattern on the wallpaper or the colour of the tablecloth rather than the fact that there's an unexploded bomb in the room.

If this is aimed at me I’m baffled. I’m in line with most proponents in that I’ve never been convinced by the standard sceptical responses focusing on awareness during anaesthesia. I’m interested in how these stories begin though. 

A few pages back someone accused me of not taking a ‘common sense’ approach to the story as presented. However, we’re asked to accept that the patient suddenly transitioned from unconscious to conscious with the surgeon present* at which point she ignored her family, wasn’t interested in how the surgery went, but instantly recounted 3 or 4 incidents from the 7 hour procedure.

I have no doubt at some point she spoke to Greene, but was it before or after someone had explained why both sides of her groin had been opened up when she’d been in for surgery on her brain?




(*having previously worked in a hospital, surgeon time tends to be used more efficiently than this.)

If this is aimed at me I’m baffled. I’m in line with most proponents in that I’ve never been convinced by the standard sceptical responses focusing on awareness during anaesthesia. I’m interested in how these stories begin though. 

A few pages back someone accused me of not taking a ‘common sense’ approach to the story as presented. However, we’re asked to accept that the patient suddenly transitioned from unconscious to conscious with the surgeon present* at which point she ignored her family, wasn’t interested in how the surgery went, but instantly recounted 3 or 4 incidents from the 7 hour procedure.

I have no doubt at some point she spoke to Greene, but was it before or after someone had explained why both sides of her groin had been opened up when she’d been in for surgery on her brain?




(*having previously worked in a hospital, surgeon time tends to be used more efficiently than this.)

I think I'm also baffled but about what precisely is the point you are making. Are you claiming that the whole story - including the details of what happened during her surgery - was fed to her at various times after she regained consciousness? Hasn't this been dismissed by the hospital staff already? 

Additionally, you seem to be suggesting that, human psychology being what it is, the doctors were seeking a little fame by association. Common sense tells me that it is highly unlikely that they would all participate in some elaborate confabulation - especially concerning a subject matter that doctors usually avoid or treat with a certain arrogant disdain.

Otherwise, your argument seems to be that the whole story is unlikely because you have, in your own mind, reconstructed the timeline and what was likely to have been said by whom along that timeline and you don't find your own reconstruction convincing enough to make Pam's story credible. And all of this reconstruction was done from what you remember being discussed at Skeptiko and on this forum - isn't that so?