View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Share or recommend interesting films and videos about paranormal phenomena, awakening topics, skepticism, spirituality, metaphysics, science, conspiracies, etc.

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby quantumparanormal » 25 Aug 2009, 23:54

ProfWag wrote:If something is not irrefutable, that makes it refutable. True?


Logically speaking, no. There's an indeterminate state in boolean logic (tri-state) which states that something which is neither true nor false is simply unknown. In the software architectural world, such a value is referred to as null. In the real world, and often times, we simply don't know the answers to certain things. We cannot simply say that if something is not false, it must be true. Using the God example, we can not logically conclude the statement that "God exists" is either true or false--it's simply unknown at the moment (i.e., we need evidence to support a conclusion either way). The same argument holds true for whether or not "Pam did indeed have an NDE during a flat brainline"--we simply don't know if it's a true or false statement. The evidence just isn't there to logically deduce the answer. We can speculate and let faith and/or our biases decide (which is what most people do, unfortunately), but that's not empirical nor logical and, hence, unscientific. I'm happy to conclude that I simply don't know, just as I am happy to conclude I don't know whether or not there indeed is a God. I'd rather be logically correct in my conclusion than to be biased and pick a true or false stance.

I believe we agree with each other but are semantically at odds.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA






Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby ProfWag » 26 Aug 2009, 00:06

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:If something is not irrefutable, that makes it refutable. True?


Logically speaking, no. There's an indeterminate state in boolean logic (tri-state) which states that something which is neither true nor false is simply unknown. In the software architectural world, such a value is referred to as null. In the real world, and often times, we simply don't know the answers to certain things. We cannot simply say that if something is not false, it must be true. Using the God example, we can not logically conclude the statement that "God exists" is either true or false--it's simply unknown at the moment (i.e., we need evidence to support a conclusion either way). The same argument holds true for whether or not "Pam did indeed have an NDE during a flat brainline"--we simply don't know if it's a true or false statement. The evidence just isn't there to logically deduce the answer. We can speculate and let faith and/or our biases decide (which is what most people do, unfortunately), but that's not empirical nor logical and, hence, unscientific. I'm happy to conclude that I simply don't know, just as I am happy to conclude I don't know whether or not there indeed is a God. I'd rather be logically correct in my conclusion than to be biased and pick a true or false stance.

I believe we agree with each other but are semantically at odds.

I also believe we agree as to the subject of the thread, but you're incorrect on the meaning of the word irrefutable. If it was irrefutable, it would be impossible to argue. It is NOT impossible to argue a paranormal event as I have shown in previous posts. Hence his statement that a NDE is irrefutable, is...well...refutable.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby quantumparanormal » 26 Aug 2009, 00:36

ProfWag wrote:If it was irrefutable, it would be impossible to argue. It is NOT impossible to argue a paranormal event as I have shown in previous posts. Hence his statement that a NDE is irrefutable, is...well...refutable.


It is impossible to conclude logically whether or not Pam indeed had an NDE during a flat brainline, but it's your prerogative what/how you ultimately conclude. I'll respect it. I deal with this all the time. It's the norm, no pun intended.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby ProfWag » 26 Aug 2009, 01:39

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:If it was irrefutable, it would be impossible to argue. It is NOT impossible to argue a paranormal event as I have shown in previous posts. Hence his statement that a NDE is irrefutable, is...well...refutable.


It is impossible to conclude logically whether or not Pam indeed had an NDE during a flat brainline, but it's your prerogative what/how you ultimately conclude. I'll respect it. I deal with this all the time. It's the norm, no pun intended.

I know it is impossible to conclude that Pam had an NDE! That is why I'm arguing the topic of this thread!

Pam Reynolds may have had a NDE during a flat brainline. (This is irrefutable.)
Pam Reynolds had a NDE during a flat brainline. (This is refutable.)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby quantumparanormal » 26 Aug 2009, 02:14

ProfWag wrote:Pam Reynolds had a NDE during a flat brainline. (This is refutable.)


That's where you're wrong, unless there's some empirical evidence that proves otherwise. If so, please post it.

If we can agree that to refute is to "prove to be false or incorrect," please prove that it is false or incorrect that Pam Reynolds had an NDE during a flat brainline.

Thanks.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby quantumparanormal » 26 Aug 2009, 03:17

Put another way, we can deduce the following, logically:

Pam Reynolds may have had a NDE during a flat brainline. = TRUE
Pam Reynolds had an NDE during a flat brainline. = FALSE
Pam Reynolds did not have an NDE during a flat brainline. = FALSE

May have had is the indeterminate state, which is logically correct in this case.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby ProfWag » 26 Aug 2009, 03:34

quantumparanormal wrote:Put another way, we can deduce the following, logically:

Pam Reynolds may have had a NDE during a flat brainline. = TRUE
Pam Reynolds had an NDE during a flat brainline. = FALSE
Pam Reynolds did not have an NDE during a flat brainline. = FALSE

May have had is the indeterminate state, which is logically correct in this case.

Not to sound like an ass, but isn't that what I just said two posts up?

Falsifiability=Refutability
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby ciscop » 26 Aug 2009, 03:43

Scepcop wrote:ProfWag,
Nice article, but it makes pompous assertions when it says that Pam's NDE could not have occurred during the flat brainline. The author wasn't there and can't know that. It's another case of skeptics pretending to know more than the people who were there. Totally pompous.

It also speculates and then takes those speculations as facts. Dr. Sabom is no idiot.


when presented and instructed with a counter argument
suddenly the skeptic become pompous
again... it is not science to take any anecdote as true... (ok... taking an anecdote and making them irrefutable).
paranormal experiences arent dogmas... when we start taking paranormal tales as dogmas is the day i will be hunting down a pot of gold near a rainbow.
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby quantumparanormal » 26 Aug 2009, 03:52

ProfWag wrote:Not to sound like an ass, but isn't that what I just said two posts up?


No. You said, "Pam Reynolds had a[n] NDE during a flat brainline. (This is refutable.)" That's incorrect. It's not refutable, and it's not irrefutable. It's neither. That's my point. We are ultimately left with a null, an indeterminate answer, a maybe.

Anyways, this game of semantics is getting old. I'm done. LOL
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby ProfWag » 26 Aug 2009, 04:17

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Not to sound like an ass, but isn't that what I just said two posts up?


No. You said, "Pam Reynolds had a[n] NDE during a flat brainline. (This is refutable.)" That's incorrect. It's not refutable, and it's not irrefutable. It's neither. That's my point. We are ultimately left with a null, an indeterminate answer, a maybe.

Anyways, this game of semantics is getting old. I'm done. LOL

Yea, okay. I'll put my dictionary away now.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby Paradox » 03 Feb 2011, 17:28

Eteponge wrote:The problems with the Pam Reynolds case that Skeptics bring up is that the conversations she brought up as remembering during the operation actually took place *long before* she was placed in the "flatline stand still state" (with flatline brainwaves). She was merely under anesthesia at the time she recalled those conversations, not flatlined yet for another two hours.

Also, they like to point out that when Pam Reynolds described the surgical instrument, even though she described it as looking like an electric toothbrush (accurate) she also got some details of what it looked like *wrong* as well.

Example:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... s.html#pam


I'm not trying to be a party spoiler here and I definitely believe in psi and near-death experiences as being real spiritual/obe phenomena. However in that article you linked about Dr. Augustine he actually makes some strong arguments. It's too bad she couldn't verify the time, instruments and other things WHILE SHE WAS FLATLINED. Instead during the time she flatlined where she claims she saw her visions of heaven and deceased loved ones.

I'm not saying she's lying but believers like to point out (wrongly) that this proves Pam Reynolds had a real OBE because she verified her surroundings while having the blood drained from her brain when it didn't quite happen that way. I made the same mistake using Pam Reynolds NDE during an intense debate with some serious but intelligent debaters and skeptics on a much tougher form than even JERF and I got squashed. Personally I wouldn't use Pam Reynold's NDE as an 'irrefutable' obe evidence statement but rather as just another nde story where you have to take the person's word for it. I think there are better cases of ndes/obes (some of which you've already mentioned in your other posts) to use against debunkers than the Pam Reynolds case.
Truth is stranger than fiction.
User avatar
Paradox
 
Posts: 66
Joined: 29 Nov 2010, 05:03
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby RideTheWalrus » 25 Sep 2011, 04:32

It seems like the effort to refute Pam Reynold's experience hinges on one question - was she able to hear?

The article that ProfWag posted (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... s.html#pam) infers that she could hear.

Since Sabom does not back up this claim in Light and Death, I did a little research and discovered that his claim is indeed false. According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, as a matter of procedure, a patient who is monitored by the very same equipment to detect acoustic neuromas (benign brain tumors) "sits in a soundproof room and wears headphones" (NINDS). But a soundproof room would be unnecessary, of course, if the earphones used to measure AEPs "occlude the ear canals and altogether eliminate the possibility of physical hearing." It is theoretically possible that the earphones used in 1991 made physical hearing impossible, whereas the earphones used today do not. However, it highly unlikely, as it would be far cheaper for medical institutions to continue to invest in the imagined sound-eliminating earphones, rather than soundproofing entire rooms to eliminate external sounds.


Keith complains that Sabom did not back up his claim that hearing was impossible for Pam in his book. After reading Keith's objection, the first thought that popped into my mind was that perhaps the reason Sabom simply stated that hearing was impossible as a fact was because it was common knowledge in the field.

After all, if Sabom was making a false assertion about Pam's ability to hear, one would think that given the high profile nature of the Pam Reynolds case somebody knowledgeable about the procedure and/or the equipment used would have stepped forward to debunk Sabom's claim as false.

How many skeptics are there in the medical/scientific field alone? And we are to believe that to this day none of them have come forward with a scientific case showing that it was possible to hear in that situation?

Instead, Keith, a philosopher (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... h-bio.html) presents a case that is centered on the use of this equipment in an entirely different situation.

Auditory evoked potentials (also called brain stem auditory evoked response) are used to assess high-frequency hearing loss, diagnose any damage to the acoustic nerve and auditory pathways in the brainstem, and detect acoustic neuromas. The patient sits in a soundproof room and wears headphones. Clicking sounds are delivered one at a time to one ear while a masking sound is sent to the other ear. Each ear is usually tested twice, and the entire procedure takes about 45 minutes.
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/misc ... _tests.htm

Keith concludes that because AEP tests occur in sound proof rooms, Pam Reynolds could have heard her surroundings. It strikes me as a weak argument, and it brings way too many unaddressed questions to mind.

Do AEP tests use sounds of the same intensity and frequency?

Pam Reynold’s ear plugs were molded to her ear drums. Is this the case in standard AEP tests? Or do they simply use generic ear plugs?

Might the reason the AEP tests take place in a sound proof room be because there are breaks inbetween each series of clicks? During these breaks, the patient might be able to hear sounds through their earplugs which would stimulate the auditory pathways of the brain and interfere with the measurements they are trying to record in the test. In other words, the presence of the soundproof room may not be because of interference while the sounds are occurring, but instead interference between each series of sounds.

Not every AEP test uses the same equipment. Are the tests he’s speaking of using ear plugs similar to Pam Reynolds? Or ear phones placed over the head? I have found claims of both online, and found many AEP tests that do not take place in soundproof rooms…

If you don’t accept the conclusion that Pam could hear during the experience, most of the rest of Keith’s arguments fall over like a house of cards, as his explanations for her ability to see events that occurred stems from her ability to hear what was happening around her and thus imagine them accurately.
User avatar
RideTheWalrus
 
Posts: 9
Joined: 26 Jul 2011, 07:05

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby craig weiler » 02 Oct 2011, 00:33

Has anyone proven that it is possible for someone to hear or remember any experience under anesthesia and come back with memories of the event? I think that this question is relevant.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby Arouet » 02 Oct 2011, 00:52

Not quite answering your question, but the AWARE study aims to be the most comprehensive study of NDEs - I'm looking forward to reading the report - should be interesting, no matter what the findings. IIRC he's going way beyond just the images, but looking at what's going on physiologically during the experience.

Certainly there are cases of people partially coming out of anesthesia or not being sufficiently anesthetized and having memories of what has gone on.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby craig weiler » 02 Oct 2011, 01:22

OK. But they were monitoring brain functions, so partially coming out of anesthesia is not a good explanation.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

PreviousNext

Return to Share Interesting Videos and Films

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest