The Pope gives Atheists some credit

[ChristineM]

Heres a quote from this page > AWARE study initial results are published!

"Of the 2,060 cardiac arrests during the study, 140 patients survived and could be interviewed for the study. Of these, 101 patients had detailed interviews, which identified 9 patients who had an NDE. Of the 9 NDErs, two had detailed memories with awareness of the physical environment. One NDEr's experience was verified as accurate; the other was too ill for an in-depth interview. These two NDEs occurred in non-acute areas where no visual target was present, so further verification of visual awareness was not possible. Further study and, perhaps, a reassessment of the methodology and goals of the study are warranted."

Emphasis on the underline.

Also, if you wer to do a scientific study on NDEs, how would you do it?

Yes i quoted what the doctor said, he said the patient responded to auditory stimuli. And it was not possible to prove the reality

How could you do it?. It is not me making the claim but i have said, several times what is needed for a scientific study

 

[Jollybear]

Sadly his posts indicate that he does not understand the scientific method nor does he wish to learn.

So, let me ask you this, how would you apply the scientific method to test if conciousness survives death?

He likes authoitarianism, based upon titles. That is shown by how he falls for fake peer review. His source called itself "peer review" so he assumed that it was.

And how do you know its fake peer review? You havent proven that.

Qualifications of the writers is only one part of peer review. One can't have peer review without reviewers.

Thats obvious.

The problem is that you are not able to judge the evidence properly, nor am I. Since no one references those articles it appears that those that would be considered experts in the field do not put any value on those articles either.

So youve looked on every website dealing with NDEs to check and see who or who does not reference those journals hey?

Let me put things into reality, the journals cite the direct studies in NDEs. Thats how it is.

You misunderstood. The impact factor tells you if the evidence is worth anything.

And the impact factor can kiss my ***. The reality is you dont avaluate evidence by FIRST saying theres no evidence. You dont avaluate evidence by first ignoring it.

You first have to show that the studies are wrong, flawed or good.

With an impact factor of zero the answer is "No". There is no value to the supposed evidence in those so called journals.

And you have the nerve to talk of authoritarianism in my case? Really?

 

[Jollybear]

Yes i quoted what the doctor said, he said the patient responded to auditory stimuli. And it was not possible to prove the reality

How could you do it?. It is not me making the claim but i have said, several times what is needed for a scientific study

Spell it out better. Whats needed for a scientific study of NDEs?

If you wer to do a scientific study to test if NDEs are real, how would you do it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, let me ask you this, how would you apply the scientific method to test if conciousness survives death?

I can't think of a proper test, but I am not making the positive claim. That is the duty of those claiming that such a thing is possible. And they have not done so.

And how do you know its fake peer review? You havent proven that.

I have more than enough evidence. That you could not understand it or unjustly denied it is not my problem . What is its impact factor again?

Thats obvious.



So youve looked on every website dealing with NDEs to check and see who or who does not reference those journals hey?

You have the burden of proof backwards again. Let me remind you, in the world of The sciences unsupported claims are rejected.

Let me put things into reality, the journals cite the direct studies in NDEs. Thats how it is.

You misspelled "urinal".

Try again.

And the impact factor can kiss my ***. The reality is you dont avaluate evidence by FIRST saying theres no evidence. You dont avaluate evidence by first ignoring it.

You first have to show that the studies are wrong, flawed or good.

Wrong again. An impact factor of zero tells me that other scientists have already done that.

And you have the nerve to talk of authoritarianism in my case? Really?

Yep. I know evaluate sources. You will use any piece of garbage that agrees with you. The number one rule in citing sources is to make sure that one is using a valid source.

 

[ChristineM]

Spell it out better. Whats needed for a scientific study of NDEs?

If you wer to do a scientific study to test if NDEs are real, how would you do it?

Do you have problems reading?

I have more than enough evidence. That you could not understand it or unjustly denied it is not my problem . What is its impact factor again?

Dr Parnia's report, the only one @Jollybear claims is valid (although the good doctor makes no such claim, in fact he specifically states it cannot be verified) is not peer reviewed, it is simply a report

 

[Jollybear]

I can't think of a proper test, but I am not making the positive claim. That is the duty of those claiming that such a thing is possible. And they have not done so.

Im not even talking about claims in this question. Whether claims for or against. Im simply asking you what a proper test would be or look like if you wer to find out if NDEs are real. Put some effort and thought into the question. What test would you come up with? Come on now, your all about the scientific method right? Well, how would you apply the scientific method to test NDEs? Lets go through this.

I have more than enough evidence. That you could not understand it or unjustly denied it is not my problem . What is its impact factor again?

Just because a journal is not listed on that site dont discount said journals evidence.

Also, again, refere back to Wikipedias sourced point that an impact factor has problems. Also refere back to my point that you dont refute a journals evidence by ignoring it, you refute it by publishing your own peer review journal refuting there journal. This should be a no brainer. Scientific method, ya ya?

You have the burden of proof backwards again. Let me remind you, in the world of The sciences unsupported claims are rejected.

In the world of REAL science, unsupported claims that hold traction get REFUTED, not ignored.

You misspelled "urinal".
Try again.

And thats alright because its not important. My post is not peer reviewed, if it wer, everything would be spelled right.

Wrong again. An impact factor of zero tells me that other scientists have already done that.

Look sub, you have not even read and discussed any of the journals i gave you in that source. Now you assume other scientists already refuted them without even knowing or having found those so called refuted publications and then cite them. And yet you wanba keep thumping about the scientific method? The scientific method does not approuch things like your doing now.

Yep. I know evaluate sources. You will use any piece of garbage that agrees with you. The number one rule in citing sources is to make sure that one is using a valid source.

You havent even evaluated the source i gave you. This is incredable. Handwave it all away.

Do you have problems reading?

Do you have problems telling me what a proper test would be to find out if NDEs are real or not real? How would you go about it, come now.

Dr Parnia's report, the only one @Jollybear claims is valid

I didnt say its the only one. Im citing one as a example to discuss.

(although the good doctor makes no such claim, in fact he specifically states it cannot be verified) is not peer reviewed, it is simply a report

Thats false, ONE case WAS verified as accurate.

Also, a report from a study test is OBVIOUSLY not peer reviewed. Thats a no brainer. No scientific test studies are peer reviewed UNTIL AFTER there reported and the REPORT itself is NOT the peer review. The peer review is when a write up is done CITING the report and or many reports done and then submitted to peers to comb through it for mistakes.

 

[Audie]

In the "world of real science" nobody
bothers to refute such as a claim
of mermaids or unicorns. Unless
rolling eyes heavenward in mock
resignation is considered "refuting".

Why anyone bothers trys to refute
umicorns or NDE to a true believer
any other way is a bigger mystery of
nature than the "NDE" is.

 

[ChristineM]

.

Do you have problems telling me what a proper test would be to find out if NDEs are real or not real? How would you go about it, come now.



I didnt say its the only one. Im citing one as a example to discuss.



Thats false, ONE case WAS verified as accurate.

Also, a report from a study test is OBVIOUSLY not peer reviewed. Thats a no brainer. No scientific test studies are peer reviewed UNTIL AFTER there reported and the REPORT itself is NOT the peer review. The peer review is when a write up is done CITING the report and or many reports done and then submitted to peers to comb through it for mistakes.

I have told you this repeatedly, both the requirements and repeatability. If you cannot provide peer reviewed documents then why are youneven claiming they are peer reviewed?

Ok, the ONE example you are claiming is validated.

No, i provided the good doctors comment, to paraphrase, he could validate the patient responded to audio stimuli while his heart was not beating. Unless you can provide another to prove your point.

Correct .So why does your cognitive dissonance driven web site say peer reviewed.
Actually peer review happens when the paper is published and other, independent scientists attempt to duplicate the findings. If the results of the paper can be readily duplicated then it passes peer review. To date, you, nor anyone else has ever cited a paper ndes that has passed peer review

 

[ChristineM]

In the "world of real science" nobody
bothers to refute such as a claim
of mermaids or unicorns. Unless
rolling eyes heavenward in mock
resignation is considered "refuting".

Why anyone bothers trys to refute
umicorns or NDE to a true believer
any other way is a bigger mystery of
nature than the "NDE" is.

'Tiz fun, and the eye rollng is good exercise.

 

[Jollybear]

In the "world of real science" nobody
bothers to refute such as a claim
of mermaids or unicorns. Unless
rolling eyes heavenward in mock
resignation is considered "refuting".

Why anyone bothers trys to refute
umicorns or NDE to a true believer
any other way is a bigger mystery of
nature than the "NDE" is.

NDEs have evidence and experiences by millions of people. To dismiss them like mocking mermaids is nothing short of hand waving away.

 

[Jollybear]

I have told you this repeatedly, both the requirements and repeatability.

There is repeatability. There is more then one study and a list of peer review journals, which are all on that site. Each journal cites there references. Thats what peer review does.

If you cannot provide peer reviewed documents then why are youneven claiming they are peer reviewed?

They ARE peer reviewed. You havent even read ONE of them and checked there references and yet you handwaving it away saying there not peer reviewed. Its incredable. But not surprising in the least. I dont blame you for this, its nothing against you. Its your position. Your position has got nothing of substance to offer.

Ok, the ONE example you are claiming is validated.

Yes, it is.

No, i provided the good doctors comment, to paraphrase, he could validate the patient responded to audio stimuli while his heart was not beating. Unless you can provide another to prove your point.

I did provide and linked the quote.

Correct .So why does your cognitive dissonance driven web site say peer reviewed.

Why does your cognitive dissonance deny its peer reviewed?

Actually peer review happens when the paper is published and other, independent scientists attempt to duplicate the findings. If the results of the paper can be readily duplicated then it passes peer review. To date, you, nor anyone else has ever cited a paper ndes that has passed peer review

Thats not true. Peer review can happen before duplication. Also, peer review can keep happening after other duplications. Thats how the scientific method goes on.

Also your not answering my question. How would you test for NDEs?

 

[Jollybear]

'

Also heres the full quote of pernia in its context

"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."

 

[ChristineM]

Also heres the full quote of pernia in its context

"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."

Let me do the same

"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."


Now all he needs to do is get it peer reviewed, i will wait and if you let me know when that happens we can continue this conversation that you claim ndes are peer reviewed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Im not even talking about claims in this question. Whether claims for or against. Im simply asking you what a proper test would be or look like if you wer to find out if NDEs are real. Put some effort and thought into the question. What test would you come up with? Come on now, your all about the scientific method right? Well, how would you apply the scientific method to test NDEs? Lets go through this.

It is not my belief. It is not my claim. I am not the one that needs to support it. From what I have seen there are rational explanations for NDE's. No appeal to the supernatural is needed.

Just because a journal is not listed on that site dont discount said journals evidence.

It tells us that no scientist has ever referred to its articles when writing up their own research. It tells us that other experts in the field do not think that it is worth anything.

Also, again, refere back to Wikipedias sourced point that an impact factor has problems. Also refere back to my point that you dont refute a journals evidence by ignoring it, you refute it by publishing your own peer review journal refuting there journal. This should be a no brainer. Scientific method, ya ya?[/quiote]

Granted, an impact factor has problems. That does not negate the fact that no scientists appear to take that journal seriously.

In the world of REAL science, unsupported claims that hold traction get REFUTED, not ignored.

In the world of REAL science people publish in well respected journals. There are journals that call themselves "peer reviewed" that will publish anything for money.



And thats alright because its not important. My post is not peer reviewed, if it wer, everything would be spelled right.



Look sub, you have not even read and discussed any of the journals i gave you in that source. Now you assume other scientists already refuted them without even knowing or having found those so called refuted publications and then cite them. And yet you wanba keep thumping about the scientific method? The scientific method does not approuch things like your doing now.

Publication is a very important part of the scientific process. But to be taken seriously one must publish in a well respected journal.

You havent even evaluated the source i gave you. This is incredable. Handwave it all away.

A handwave is all that it takes to dismiss a low level source.

Do you have problems telling me what a proper test would be to find out if NDEs are real or not real? How would you go about it, come now.

Again, not my belief, no my obligation. Anecdotes are not seen as reliable evidence, and that appears to be all that you have.

I didnt say its the only one. Im citing one as a example to discuss.



Thats false, ONE case WAS verified as accurate.

I don't think so. If I recall that was merely anecdote as well.

Also, a report from a study test is OBVIOUSLY not peer reviewed. Thats a no brainer. No scientific test studies are peer reviewed UNTIL AFTER there reported and the REPORT itself is NOT the peer review. The peer review is when a write up is done CITING the report and or many reports done and then submitted to peers to comb through it for mistakes.

Okay so you do not even have a fake peer reviewed article now. You are handwaving away your own "evidence".

 

[Jollybear]

Let me do the same

"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."

Ok, in your own words, what do you think pernia is saying here?

Now all he needs to do is get it peer reviewed, i will wait and if you let me know when that happens we can continue this conversation that you claim ndes are peer reviewed.

It was peer reviewed.

 

[Jollybear]

It is not my belief. It is not my claim. I am not the one that needs to support it. From what I have seen there are rational explanations for NDE's. No appeal to the supernatural is needed.

Ok, well your CLAIM then is that conciousness does not continue on after the body/brain dies. Well, THAT IS YOUR belief. So, AGAIN, ill ask you, how would you test for that?

It tells us that no scientist has ever referred to its articles when writing up their own research. It tells us that other experts in the field do not think that it is worth anything.

No, it tells us that the specific peer reviewed journals on the impact factor site are about other subject matters. Subjects not dealing with NDEs, either for or against.

And again, dont talk about me being authoritarian when the FACT is you are the one doing the very thing via your actions.

You dont prove or disprove NDEs by NOT dealing with them at all. Not refuting them or ignoring them, ect.

Publication is a very important part of the scientific process. But to be taken seriously one must publish in a well respected journal.

If you submit your studies for peer review and there outright rejected without refutation, THAT should make you NOT respect those group of reviewers.

Also, it was peer reviewed. Look here >

Journal of Near-Death Studies - Wikipedia

A handwave is all that it takes to dismiss a low level source.

And im authoritarian? Lol, ya right, sure, not. REFUTE it "mr scientific method." Your nothing about the scientific method in your approuch. Not even close. Actions speak louder then words.

Again, not my belief, no my obligation. Anecdotes are not seen as reliable evidence, and that appears to be all that you have.

Its more then anecdotes. There was controlled studies done and in this one study im talking about, one cases perceptions in OBE was verified accurate. And halucinations are shown to be faulty explanations.

I don't think so. If I recall that was merely anecdote as well.

FALSE! That one was part of the controlled study!

Okay so you do not even have a fake peer reviewed article now. You are handwaving away your own "evidence".

False again. Come now, aprouch this a bit more intelligently. Im explaining to you that NO science, nomatter what area is peer reviewed by the test study FIRST.

Theres a study test, THEN theres peer review after.

This has been peer reviewed. And theres been other studies as well. But, im talking of one at the moment.

 

[ChristineM]

Ok, in your own words, what do you think pernia is saying here?



It was peer reviewed.

Why my words, why not his own words?


He is saying the patient reacted to auditory stimuli while his heart was stopped.

And it was not possible to absolutely prove the reality or meaning of patients’ experiences.

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?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, in your own words, what do you think pernia is saying here?



It was peer reviewed.

Your claim of "peer review" is refuted by the fact that you avoid a reasonable definition of the term.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, well your CLAIM then is that conciousness does not continue on after the body/brain dies. Well, THAT IS YOUR belief. So, AGAIN, ill ask you, how would you test for that?

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.

No, it tells us that the specific peer reviewed journals on the impact factor site are about other subject matters. Subjects not dealing with NDEs, either for or against.

Do you seriously think that there are no such articles in real peer reviewed journals?

And again, dont talk about me being authoritarian when the FACT is you are the one doing the very thing via your actions.

No, understanding what sources are reliable and what ones are not is not being authoritarian.

You dont prove or disprove NDEs by NOT dealing with them at all. Not refuting them or ignoring them, ect.

No one is advocating that. Nice strawman.

If you submit your studies for peer review and there outright rejected without refutation, THAT should make you NOT respect those group of reviewers.

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.

 

[Jollybear]

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.