"Why I am no longer a skeptic"

I didn't say that he couldn't have sensed anything during CPR. We were talking about seemingly impossible sense data, like sense data occurring when a subject was in cardiac arrest and not undergoing CPR  I said that the incident (the physician eating the sandwich) wouldn't have occurred under those conditions. You're right that we can't prove anything with this case. About the only thing we know about it is that it can't be an example of seemingly impossible sense data. So why it was even brought up as a potential example of impossible sense data is a puzzle to me.

Linda

Why is it "impossible" for the person to receive sense data while in arrest and not getting CPR?

Why are you sure the patient had access to the sense data of eating the sandwich? Or are you just saying that he COULD have?

I wasn't asserting that you were trolling. I was genuinely puzzled and asking you what was going on - I suggested trolling as a possibility because I was having trouble thinking of some other reason for this strange behaviour. I'm relieved to find out this wasn't the case. Thank you.

My response to post hoc stories is "that sounds potentially interesting. What happens when stories are collected under conditions of good reliability and validity?" The answer will be the same whenever post hoc stories (no matter how meticulously they are researched after the fact) are offered.

Linda

No problem.... see my questions in next post.

Why is it "impossible" for the person to receive sense data while in arrest and not getting CPR?

Why are you sure the patient had access to the sense data of eating the sandwich? Or are you just saying that he COULD have?

I think it's generally regarded, amongst proponents and skeptics, that it's highly improbable after a minute of cardiac arrest. I've seen proponents give it as impossible within seconds of arrest, but the research is consistent with it being near impossible after a minute. Note: I'm talking about real cardiac arrest - i.e. asystole - not the wide variety of conditions that can be seen which require resuscitation but may still allow for some cerebral perfusion.

I didn't say I was sure. I'm saying it can't be ruled-out with any degree of likelihood.

Linda

Well, that brings up an interesting question. We've been talking about the kind of information which is regarded as reliable and valid, and the kind of information that I am looking for (the kind that I feel can be used to make real progress in understanding these phenomena). I talked about how even some prominent parapsychologists recognize that unrecorded stories are very problematic in this regard, and I gave some of examples of why this is so.

So given all that, why did you (and jkmac for that matter) choose to present this kind of information to me? Are you just trolling me?

Linda

No Linda, you asked for examples and I gave you them. Just because they fulfil the criteria of not occurring under CPR doesn't mean I'm 'trolling' you. I asked Titus and he gave these examples and directed me to his book. Please don't ask if I'm 'trolling' you again.

I think it's generally regarded, amongst proponents and skeptics, that it's highly improbable after a minute of cardiac arrest. I've seen proponents give it as impossible within seconds of arrest, but the research is consistent with it being near impossible after a minute. Note: I'm talking about real cardiac arrest - i.e. asystole - not the wide variety of conditions that can be seen which require resuscitation but may still allow for some cerebral perfusion.

I didn't say I was sure. I'm saying it can't be ruled-out with any degree of likelihood.

Linda

As an EMT for 20 years I can say I have a ton of personal experience with cardiac arrest, and administration of CPR and other resuscitation procedures, and I agree with your assessments in general.

However- I will also say that I have read many accounts of skeptics asserting that one can't rule out senses being functional in ANY situation, as long as the body is viable: including respiratory and cardiac arrest.  I have heard it asserted that until and unless the body is physically in some state of dissolution, where the facilities of sense simple don't exist, sense is possible.

I hesitate to say it this way, but most skeptics seem to cede things (in this case the  ability to sense) only when it doesn't hurt the case they are making. OTOH- if this were the only thin thread left on which their argument depended, the argument then changes to something like: "who knows exactly when sense data stops? We really can't say..." 

Honestly- Can you really say you haven't seen this happen? Or perhaps that you haven't done this yourself?

It's all very tiring, and really that's when the disingenuous nature of a particular skeptic becomes quite obvious. And this not a case where "both sides do it". It is a tactic typically used by someone who can claim that if "we just don't know", we need to assume the accepted thing. Unfortunately when a proponent says the same thing, it is used as an indication of the skeptic being right. 

In other situations it's called: asymmetrical warfare...

I think it's generally regarded, amongst proponents and skeptics, that it's highly improbable after a minute of cardiac arrest. I've seen proponents give it as impossible within seconds of arrest, but the research is consistent with it being near impossible after a minute. Note: I'm talking about real cardiac arrest - i.e. asystole - not the wide variety of conditions that can be seen which require resuscitation but may still allow for some cerebral perfusion.

I didn't say I was sure. I'm saying it can't be ruled-out with any degree of likelihood.

Linda

Note: I'm talking about real cardiac arrest

"Note: I'm talking about real cardiac arrest - i.e. asystole - not the wide variety of conditions that can be seen which require resuscitation but may still allow for some cerebral perfusion."

This statement is a complete disgrace. Absolute nonsense !! You're saying ventricular fibrillation is not real cardiac arrest ?

Ventricular fibrillation is life-threatening

Ventricular fibrillation (v-fib for short) is the most serious cardiac rhythm disturbance. The lower chambers quiver and the heart can't pump any blood, causing cardiac arrest.

What causes a cardiac arrest?
The most common cause of a cardiac arrest is a life threatening abnormal heart rhythm called ventricular fibrillation (VF).
Ventricular fibrillation happens when the electrical activity of your heart becomes so chaotic that the heart stops pumping and quivers or 'fibrillates' instead. There are various causes of VF. These can be problems with your heart, or other causes.

No Linda, you asked for examples and I gave you them.

In the setting of jkmac asking whether pre-existing cases on impossible sense data (sense data during no cerebral perfusion) would fulfill the criteria and example I had mentioned (information trustworthy enough to demonstrate something remarkable and hidden targets), you stated that there were many examples. I asked if you had those examples. I was expecting examples of what we had been talking about - information trustworthy enough to demonstrate sense data during no cerebral perfusion.

Just because they fulfil the criteria of not occurring under CPR doesn't mean I'm 'trolling' you.

I asked because they didn't fulfill the criteria of being trustworthy. I wondered if I was being set up to look unreasonable because, I, yet again, was unwilling to accept untrustworthy information. If that wasn't your intention, I accept that. But I was genuinely puzzled as to your purpose in bringing these examples up. I see now we were talking at cross-purposes.

Please don't ask if I'm 'trolling' you again.

Well at least something useful came out of this.  Now you had a tiny taste of what I have had to put up with.

Linda

As an EMT for 20 years I can say I have a ton of personal experience with cardiac arrest, and administration of CPR and other resuscitation procedures, and I agree with your assessments in general.

However- I will also say that I have read many accounts of skeptics asserting that one can't rule out senses being functional in ANY situation, as long as the body is viable: including respiratory and cardiac arrest.  I have heard it asserted that until and unless the body is physically in some state of dissolution, where the facilities of sense simple don't exist, sense is possible.

I hesitate to say it this way, but most skeptics seem to cede things (in this case the  ability to sense) only when it doesn't hurt the case they are making. OTOH- if this were the only thin thread left on which their argument depended, the argument then changes to something like: "who knows exactly when sense data stops? We really can't say..." 

Honestly- Can you really say you haven't seen this happen? Or perhaps that you haven't done this yourself?

It's all very tiring, and really that's when the disingenuous nature of a particular skeptic becomes quite obvious. And this not a case where "both sides do it". It is a tactic typically used by someone who can claim that if "we just don't know", we need to assume the accepted thing. Unfortunately when a proponent says the same thing, it is used as an indication of the skeptic being right. 

In other situations it's called: asymmetrical warfare...

I'm generally looking for common ground which is intuitively palatable to most everyone, which I think my earlier statement represents. The problem is that some recent research is suggesting that this common ground assumption may be wrong, even if it seems counter-intuitive. And I have seen skeptics bring it up. If I'm being strictly scientific, I'm obliged to bring it up as well. But my experience has been that it will receive the reaction you just gave, from proponents, so why bother.

And speaking for myself, I think that if this kind of information ever presented itself, I would find it remarkable enough to argue over with a skeptic. I think the argument goes, "if we just don't know then there's no need to assume the unestablished thing", though.

Linda

In the setting of jkmac asking whether pre-existing cases on impossible sense data (sense data during no cerebral perfusion) would fulfill the criteria and example I had mentioned (information trustworthy enough to demonstrate something remarkable and hidden targets), you stated that there were many examples. I asked if you had those examples. I was expecting examples of what we had been talking about - information trustworthy enough to demonstrate sense data during no cerebral perfusion.


I asked because they didn't fulfill the criteria of being trustworthy. I wondered if I was being set up to look unreasonable because, I, yet again, was unwilling to accept untrustworthy information. If that wasn't your intention, I accept that. But I was genuinely puzzled as to your purpose in bringing these examples up. I see now we were talking at cross-purposes.


Well at least something useful came out of this.  Now you had a tiny taste of what I have had to put up with.

Linda

Nope, me and you were just discussing whether there were NDE's that happened without CPR, I knew some existed and found out for you. If they dont meet other criteria of yours then that's fine.