Some Christmas History

User avatar
TraumaT
Posts: 3547
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:53 am

Re: Some Christmas History

Post by TraumaT » Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:47 pm

Ok, gonna watch it and see....

User avatar
TraumaT
Posts: 3547
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:53 am

Re: Some Christmas History

Post by TraumaT » Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:58 pm

This is probably gonna piss you off, but I don't think that black faces Dixie thing at the end was cool. Different times now. Some things are good to leave behind.

Best regards,
Mrs. Namby Pamby


(Am I the only one who thinks BE is a lot like Bugs Bunny, by the way? Hahahahaha!)

User avatar
Pana
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:40 pm

Re: Some Christmas History

Post by Pana » Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:49 pm

Hey, I've been tending to some family business and been back and forth and all around.

What were we talking about? Ive lost the thread on ajoe's position. I seem to recollect that I found it illogical that he could take the stance that beyond consciousness was not worthy of investigation because there is nothing beyond brain death.

Illogical as there is no proof that can be offered to support his statement and a more logical and scientific approach is to explore it to either be able to negate it or support it.
“Integrity has no need of rules.”

-Albert Camus

averagejoe
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Some Christmas History

Post by averagejoe » Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:00 am

Pana wrote: I seem to recollect that I found it illogical that he could take the stance that beyond consciousness was not worthy of investigation because there is nothing beyond brain death.
You found it illogical? As logic is defined as a mode of reasoning, or valid reasoning, I cannot see how what I said was "illogical".

To assume that brain death = the end of consciousness is certainly a more than reasonable assumption, and thus is logical thought. Death being the end is the obvious default unless shown otherwise with later data. I am actually annoyed that you try and belittle me with accusations of being illogical.
Illogical as there is no proof that can be offered to support his statement
Lack of proof does not mean I was being illogical. Logic is a manner of reasoning. It is very reasonable to think that death = no more consciousness, until that LOGICAL reasoning is shown to be wrong with evidence of consciousness surviving the death of a body.
and a more logical and scientific approach is to explore it to either be able to negate it or support it.
How do you propose science tests the claims of consciousness surviving outside of the body?

User avatar
Pana
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:40 pm

Re: Some Christmas History

Post by Pana » Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:54 am

It is illogical because because your stance disregards witness observations of it. You say consciousness does not exist beyond brain death. Witnesses say they existed beyond the death of their bodies. So in order for your stance to be valid, you ignore what these witnesses are reporting. They could be reporting a factual or not occurence but they are offering a premise. Your argument precludes actually investigating the veracity of their premises. You have reached a conclusion that is contrary to observations so it's not valid.

A conclusion "consciousness beyond brain death does not exist" would be valid only if there was a falsification of the premise/observations; if it could be determined satisfactorily that these observers experiences were only caused by neurons firing off. At this point, that still hasn't been proven.

Or, a conclusion "consciousness beyond brain death does not exist" would be valid only if nobody, ever, reported being outside of their bodies when clinically dead.

If you're interested in the subject matter of this, here is a study headed by the cardiologist of a Netherlands Hospital centered on cardiac arrest patients who were clinically dead. It was completed and submitted to the Lancet (medical journal) in 2001 or 2002:

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archiv ... et_NDE.htm

-_______________

Also, you are aware that most of medical science does advance on witness observations? Both subjective and objective.

_______________

RE: belittling - Not my style as it does little except make people feel small and reactive. So if you feel belittled, I want you to know that I have no intentions of trying to do so. Again, I reiterate that you have a good mind.
“Integrity has no need of rules.”

-Albert Camus

User avatar
Egg
Posts: 8628
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:31 pm
Location: In Your Bedroom. Hi! :D

Re: Some Christmas History

Post by Egg » Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:08 am

I think she's got you there, Joe.


User avatar
lkwalker
Posts: 6429
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:20 pm
Location: Boycotteverything
Contact:

Re: Some Christmas History

Post by lkwalker » Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:34 am

logic applies only to propositions by definition. real world occasions may or may not be analogous.
"If you don't think to good, don't think too much." Yogi

averagejoe
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Some Christmas History

Post by averagejoe » Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:13 pm

Pana wrote:It is illogical because because your stance disregards witness observations of it.
There are NO witness observations of consciousness after death. Even if there were, that does NOT make me illogical, because I could be simply disregarding witness statements as not credible and still coming to a reasonable conclusion. But as NOBODY has came back from the dead to tell the story, then it's a moot point.
You say consciousness does not exist beyond brain death.
Correct. I think consciousness ceases with the death of the brain. To me it seems reasonable, obvious, and therefore logical to assume that your consciousness dies with your brain.

It is certainly more UNreasonable to think consciousness carries on after the death of the brain, given that we understand that the brain generates your thoughts etc.

You are entitled to believe what you want, and you can argue the case all day long, but don't resort to trying to say I'm not logical therefore not worth listening to, because that is a sign that you've ran out of ammo and are attacking the credibility of me rather than the argument itself.
Witnesses say they existed beyond the death of their bodies.
Everybody that ever died, stayed dead.

Nobody has died (you aren't dead until your BRAIN is dead) and came back from it.
So in order for your stance to be valid, you ignore what these witnesses are reporting.
My stance is valid and there are no witnesses to ignore.

Nobody has died (you aren't dead until your BRAIN is dead) and came back to tell the story.
They could be reporting a factual or not occurence but they are offering a premise.
Nobody has died (you aren't dead until your BRAIN is dead) and came back to tell the story.
Your argument precludes actually investigating the veracity of their premises.
NOBODY has died (you aren't dead until your BRAIN is dead) and came back to tell the story.
You have reached a conclusion that is contrary to observations so it's not valid.
NOBODY has died (you aren't dead until your BRAIN is dead) and came back to tell the story.

Therefore it is fucking valid, logical, whatever.
A conclusion "consciousness beyond brain death does not exist" would be valid only if there was a falsification of the premise/observations;
While we can't 100% know, it is certainly reasonable to assume that death = lights out. Therefore my position is death = the end, until somebody comes along and shows me it isn't true.

There is no reason to think that the consciousness that your brain generates could carry on with out it, there is just no reason. None.

But if you want to believe it is possible then that's fine, just don't call me illogical for not agreeing.
if it could be determined satisfactorily that these observers experiences were only caused by neurons firing off. At this point, that still hasn't been proven.
There are no observers!

NOBODY has died (you aren't dead until your BRAIN is dead) and came back to tell the story.
Or, a conclusion "consciousness beyond brain death does not exist" would be valid only if nobody, ever, reported being outside of their bodies when clinically dead.
Exactly!

NOBODY has died (you aren't dead until your BRAIN is dead) and came back to tell the story
If you're interested in the subject matter of this, here is a study headed by the cardiologist of a Netherlands Hospital centered on cardiac arrest patients who were clinically dead. It was completed and submitted to the Lancet (medical journal) in 2001 or 2002:

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archiv ... et_NDE.htm
That's all well and good but brain death is irreversable, and nobody has came back from brain death, which is incidentally the legal indicator of death in most countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death

NDE's involve people who "nearly died" but were brought back before actual, irreversable brain death - "NEAR death experience"

Your whole argument is based on your understanding of death, being not actually death, but nearly death.

I'm sorry but being nearly dead doesn't cut it for me.
Also, you are aware that most of medical science does advance on witness observations? Both subjective and objective.
Medical science takes into account witness statements but whether it advances because of them isn't necessarily true in all cases. So that point is arguable.

averagejoe
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Some Christmas History

Post by averagejoe » Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:32 pm

Egg wrote:I think she's got you there, Joe.
Think again, Eggy.

User avatar
Pana
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:40 pm

Re: Some Christmas History

Post by Pana » Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:42 pm

Joe.

I think you need to read the study in the link I provided. You say, "Everybody that ever died, stayed dead. Nobody has died (you aren't dead until your BRAIN is dead) and came back from it." This statement is false. The study was done on patients that were dead (no heart beat and no brain waves which is the medical definition of dead) and were resuscitated.

Okay, I see a discrepency in language here and its interesting:

Clinical death versus brain death.

Okay, Joe, I concede brain death is the end and nobody has come back from brain death that we know of. However, in clinical death they have. So to revise this let's say that in clinical death situations some witnesses report: being out of their body, seeing a light, water, tunnel and meeting someone beyond the light, tunnel and/or water. Do you discount these as being invalid?

Do you feel I attack you, Joe? I will admit I find you very closed minded and prone to over generalizing things with a penchant for trying to provoke people whom you have termed to be bull shitters but aside from that, and for the most part, it's a pleasure to be having this discussion.
“Integrity has no need of rules.”

-Albert Camus

Post Reply