Why my words, why not his own words?
He is saying the patient reacted to auditory stimuli while his heart was stopped.
Yea......and then he goes on to explain what that meant. He explained that when the heart stopped, so did the brain. Yet, the patient still reacted to verified real events.
Again >
"Regarding the one case that was validated and timed using auditory stimuli during cardiac arrest, Parnia concluded, "This is significant, since it has often been assumed that [these] experiences ... are likely hallucinations or illusions, occurring either before the heart stops or after the heart has been successfully restarted, but not an experience corresponding with 'real' events when the heart isn't beating. In this case, consciousness and awareness appeared to occur during a three-minute period when there was no heartbeat.
This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn’t resume again until the heart has been restarted. Furthermore, the detailed recollections of visual awareness in this case were consistent with verified events.
“Thus, while it was not possible to absolutely prove the reality or meaning of patients’ experiences and claims of awareness, ... it was impossible to disclaim them either and more work is needed in this area. Clearly, the recalled experience surrounding death now merits further genuine investigation without prejudice."
And it was not possible to absolutely prove the reality or meaning of patients’ experiences.
Mainly because only one patient was able to have a verified experience with perceptions of accuracy. While the others died, wer to sick, thus couldent be interviewed, forgot, or whatever. Basically, he would like more data. Jefry long has alot of data though.
How was it peer reviewed, was the patient shipped out to various peers si they could stop his heart and see if he reacted to sound?
Thats not how peer review works.
A study is done, perhaps multiple studies, then there reported, someone cites all these reports, puts it all together accurately. Submits it for review. The reviewers comb through it for mistakes. If theres any, its sent back to be fixed. Then submitted again. Fees are given for the review. Thats how it works.
Your claim of "peer review" is refuted by the fact that you avoid a reasonable definition of the term.
I havent avoided a definition of peer review. In fact, i have explained what it is. Care to try again?
I did not make such a claim. In fact when I do make claims they are testable. I could say that the evidence implies that when the brain dies consciousness dies, but I will not state that absolutely. I can show with evidence how damage to the brain damages intellect. I can support with data that NDE's appear to be physical reactions that a brain that is almost dead goes through. But as to how we test with people I cannot say, but I am not making a statement that NDE's have to be an oogie-boogie experience. But I can say that there does not appear to be a need for magic.
So basically your making a claim that conciousness does not survive the death of the body/brain, then your contradicting yourself by saying your not making that claim.
It be nice if you could talk to me with some half decent intelligence here, please.
Also, if your making this claim, how would you test it?
Ill tell you how, the same way wed test in order to see if conciousness survives the death of the body/brain. It be with the same test. That test would be something like what pernia did, or similar or better.
Do you seriously think that there are no such articles in real peer reviewed journals?
Mayby there is, i havent read everything on the internet, have you? But, the impact factor site dont have it, so, if there is one in favor of your view, then it be on a different site then, wouldnt it? And that means i could easily use against you your own rational by saying that journal is not on the impact factor, so therefore i should handwave it away just as you did the ones i gave you.
Hows that? Huh mr smarty pants.
No, understanding what sources are reliable and what ones are not is not being authoritarian.
It is authoritarian IF your not SHOWING that the source is wrong in its views. Care to try again?
No one is advocating that. Nice strawman.
Well if your not advocating ignoring a source before refuting it, then stop ignoring the source before refuting it, lol. Because thats your actions and action speaks louder then words.
Oh my, now you have put a whole new burden of proof upon yourself.
This is getting to be too long. Find a serious source and we can talk.
Basically, you dont wanna talk, you wanna preach and handwave.
