Originally posted by Halitose The case is still that the brain is dead, maybe not irreversibly, because the patient came alive.
In this state of unconsciousness where there are no brainwaves. Could you please explain the physics of a hallucination without brainwaves.
It happens in tenths of seconds after reanimation but the patient believes it took longer.
It's a bit like a deja-vu, which is explainable neurophysiologically. The brain imprints short-term memories into long-term memories, creating a "longer" memory in a fraction of a second.
I also find it pleasantly surprising that you seem more knowledgable than qualified doctors and scientists who have studied this phenomenon first hand for many years. Perhaps you should enlighten them and put a stop to this riduculous facade of pseudo-science.
Originally posted by Palynka It happens in tenths of seconds after reanimation but the patient believes it took longer.
It's a bit like a deja-vu, which is explainable neurophysiologically. The brain imprints short-term memories into long-term memories, creating a "longer" memory in a fraction of a second.
How do you then explain that the patient can with this so-called "hallucination" explain in minute detail what happened in the room during this stage of being brain dead?
Originally posted by Halitose The case is still that the brain is dead, maybe not irreversibly, because the patient came alive.
If it is reversible, it is not officially dead.
In this state of unconsciousness where there are no brainwaves. Could you please explain the physics of a hallucination without brainwaves.
Exactly my point, there would be none, so how exactly could anyone experience anything? It is unconsciousness not death.
Sorry! My claims are from a book not a site. Just a mere technicallity, but still shows the type of conclusions you are capable of jumping to.
It shows nothing of the sort. You cannot define brain death in terms which are not consistent with those academically adhered to and then base an arguement on this difference. You can also not suggest someone is experiencing an NDE having previously claimed there is no brain activity, the two are not inclusive.
It's just one of possible explanations, also defended by some neurophysicists.
My point here is to prove your hallucinations explanation does not prove anything. It actually sounds quite similar to UFO-defenders when talking about abductions.
Sigh, and there I was hoping you wouldn't go down the route of 'I can't hold up my claim so I shall revert to calling my opponent a pseudo scientist'. Back up your claims, which have yet to have any real substance, instead of trying (and failing) to make others seem false.
Originally posted by Halitose How do you then explain that the patient can with this so-called "hallucination" explain in minute detail what happened in the room during this stage of being brain dead?
They were lying? They are good at guessing? They overheard nurses talking after the operation whilst in a state of semi-consciousness? A number of possiblities, none of which are less liekly than your claims that they saw the afterlife.
Originally posted by Starrman Originally posted by Halitose [b]The case is still that the brain is dead, maybe not irreversibly, because the patient came alive.
If it is reversible, it is not officially dead.
In this state of unconsciousness where ...[text shortened]... sly claimed there is no brain activity, the two are not inclusive.
To believe that somebody has an NDE while being brain dead, you have to assume that s/he has a soul or spirit that continues to live on, irrespective of whether the brain is dead or alive. This is exactly the point that is baffling the scientists, who take everything from the physical perspective. If the brain is dead (not functioning) then that person should be in a state of unconsciousness, but there are so many cases where this has been proven to not be the case. I don't have the time to type any out so I googled it. Try www.near-death.com or any of the myriads of sites that seem to give evidense that NDE's do exist.
Originally posted by Halitose To believe that somebody has an NDE while being brain dead, you have to assume that s/he has a soul or spirit that continues to live on, irrespective of whether the brain is dead or alive. This is exactly the point that is baffling the scientists, who take everything from the physical perspective. If the brain is dead (not functioning) then that person shou ...[text shortened]... near-death.com or any of the myriads of sites that seem to give evidense that NDE's do exist.
Since I do not believe in the supernatural I cannot allow for the fact that something is possible in the brain if the brain is dead.
Soul is something that allows you to enjoy 6/8 time signatures and a spirit is something that (under heavy quantities) allows you to pretend you have soul.
Originally posted by Starrman Since I do not believe in the supernatural I cannot allow for the fact that something is possible in the brain if the brain is dead.
Soul is something that allows you to enjoy 6/8 time signatures and a spirit is something that (under heavy quantities) allows you to pretend you have soul.
Since I do not believe in the supernatural I cannot allow for the fact that something is possible in the brain if the brain is dead.
If you don't believe that the supernatural exists, it doesn't automatically make it non-existant. Do you have any evidence to suggest that there is no supernatural entity?
Soul is something that allows you to enjoy 6/8 time signatures and a spirit is something that (under heavy quantities) allows you to pretend you have soul.
Originally posted by Starrman Since I do not believe in the supernatural I cannot allow for the fact that something is possible in the brain if the brain is dead.
Soul is something that allows you to enjoy 6/8 time signatures and a spirit is something that (under heavy quantities) allows you to pretend you have soul.
Since I do not believe in the supernatural...
Since you do not believe in the supernatural you will accept no evidence that points towards the supernatural...
The guy that said this, had some truth in his statement: The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.
Originally posted by dj2becker [b]Since I do not believe in the supernatural...
Since you do not believe in the supernatural you will accept no evidence that points towards the supernatural...
The guy that said this, had some truth in his statement: The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.[/b]
What a load of tosh. I do not believe in the supernatural because I have not seen compelling evidence for its existence, not because I just decided to on a whim. I will accept evidence, but until the crapola you continuosly spout comes even close to the minimum of logical thought required to make it considerable, it is reasonable not to change my view.
If you are going to use a metaphor like a parachute, perhaps you better first consider whether yours is even packed let alone open.
Originally posted by dj2becker If you don't believe that the supernatural exists, it doesn't automatically make it non-existant. Do you have any evidence to suggest that there is no supernatural entity?
Actually it does. Since there is no proof of the supernatural, it does not warrant belief. We've been over this sooooo many times dj2, you wouldn't believe in a fliberdgirreck if I could not provide proof it existed would you?
Originally posted by Starrman What a load of tosh. I do not believe in the supernatural because I have not seen compelling evidence for its existence, not because I just decided to on a whim. I will accept evidence, but until the crapola you continuosly spout comes e ...[text shortened]... better first consider whether yours is even packed let alone open.
You have so eloquently portrayed how you simply dimiss NDE's simply because you don't 'believe' in the supernatural.
The Atheist and Agnostic
20 Jul '05 11:29
Back to Top