Agnostics are Believers (1 Viewer)

[watsup]

I'd actually already hinted at a fourth reason also, which I didn't include above because what I'd mentioned of it in a previous post was only a fairly minor point, but on reflection is probably even more important than #3 above:

4 > There are plausible though not conclusive counter-examples to the theory that brains are necessary for consciousness even in humans, such as the case of Pam Reynolds' documented experience of vivid consciousness during an operation involving clinical death and total EEG flatline. Note that while the theory of a conscious reality is perfectly compatible with brains being necessary for consciousness in humans, evidence that brain activity may not be necessary for consciousness even in humans would pretty much cripple any materialist view. Thus while we obviously don't know whether Pam's experience occurred at the same time period of her operation as the EEG flatline, a proponent of materialism would have to simply assume blindly that it could not have despite the lack of evidence supporting that assumption. In other words the idea of a non-conscious reality is a closed, exclusionary theory which makes it inherently less plausible than more open theories since it requires a more exacting set of conditions to hold in order for it to be true, which are often contrary to people's reported observations.​

I swear, you believe the dumbest stuff.

“An anesthesiologist who examined the case offered anesthesia awareness as a more prosaic and conventional explanation for such claims.[2]

Woerlee, an anesthesiologist with many years of clinical experience, has considered this case in detail and remains unconvinced of the need for a paranormal explanation... [He] draws attention to the fact that Reynolds could only give a report of her experience some time after she recovered from the anesthetic as she was still intubated when she regained consciousness. This would provide some opportunity for her to associate and elaborate upon the sensations she had experienced during the operation with her existing knowledge and expectations. The fact that she described the small pneumatic saw used in the operation also does not impress Woerlee. As he points out, the saw sounds like and, to some extent, looks like the pneumatic drills used by dentists.[2]

Pam Reynolds case - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Plus you are very dishonest since you did not include the entire story, as above.

 

[Mithrae]

I swear, you believe the dumbest stuff.

As I said, while we obviously don't know whether Pam's experience occurred at the same time period of her operation as the EEG flatline, a proponent of materialism would have to simply assume blindly that it could not have despite the lack of evidence supporting that assumption. The pattern is familiar and entirely predictable:
- Observational evidence is provided for miraculous healing or consciousness without brain activity or whatever else
- Someone proposes an ad hoc scenario which might be true, but is far from certain and essentially amounts to explaining away the evidence
- Atheists embrace the ad hoc speculation as gods' own truth and declare the observational evidence 'debunked' and therefore not Real Evidence (TM) at all, and continue to proclaim that there is "no evidence" against their own pet theories (which of course they themselves have not provided any evidence for, but that's okay because they weren't the ones who "made the initial proposal" as you put it )

The alternative explanation in the case of Pam Reynolds is certainly possible, though hardly convincing as it requires several distinct variables to be true none of which besides perhaps the last is especially likely even in isolation: That Pam had anaesthesia awareness; that Pam heard sounds and speech through her blocked ears; that Pam somehow interpreted the drill sound well enough to describe a tool she'd never seen, along with various other inferences about her surgery; and that Pam misperceived the timeline of her experience relative to the surgery and specifically EEG flatline. In any other case we'd consider this series of variables higly unlikely, perhaps somewhere in the range of 10 to 20%; but because of the remarkable implications if that series of variables were not true, we might generously suppose that Pam's interpretation of her experience is only 60 or 70% likely rather than 80 or 90%.

The point is that under the theory of a conscious reality it doesn't even matter whether Pam interpreted her experience correctly or not; but a correct interpretation of her experience would essentially cripple any theory of a non-conscious reality. Because it's a closed, exclusionary theory it requires the blind assumption irrespective of the available evidence or probabilities that Pam's experience (and others like it) are all false or incorrectly interpreted. Given what we know of human experience, the theory of a non-conscious reality requires a much more exacting set of conditions to hold in order to be true, contrary to many reported observations, which makes it considerably less plausible than the more open alternative - the extrapolation from our certainty that consciousness is real to the likelihood that reality is conscious.

 

[watsup]

As I said, while we obviously don't know whether Pam's experience occurred at the same time period of her operation as the EEG flatline, a proponent of materialism would have to simply assume blindly that it could not have despite the lack of evidence supporting that assumption. The pattern is familiar and entirely predictable:
- Observational evidence is provided for miraculous healing or consciousness without brain activity or whatever else
- Someone proposes an ad hoc scenario which might be true, but is far from certain and essentially amounts to explaining away the evidence
- Atheists embrace the ad hoc speculation as gods' own truth and declare the observational evidence 'debunked' and therefore not Real Evidence (TM) at all, and continue to proclaim that there is "no evidence" against their own pet theories (which of course they themselves have not provided any evidence for, but that's okay because they weren't the ones who "made the initial proposal" as you put it )

The alternative explanation in the case of Pam Reynolds is certainly possible, though hardly convincing as it requires several distinct variables to be true none of which besides perhaps the last is especially likely even in isolation: That Pam had anaesthesia awareness; that Pam heard sounds and speech through her blocked ears; that Pam somehow interpreted the drill sound well enough to describe a tool she'd never seen, along with various other inferences about her surgery; and that Pam misperceived the timeline of her experience relative to the surgery and specifically EEG flatline. In any other case we'd consider this series of variables higly unlikely, perhaps somewhere in the range of 10 to 20%; but because of the remarkable implications if that series of variables were not true, we might generously suppose that Pam's interpretation of her experience is only 60 or 70% likely rather than 80 or 90%.

The point is that under the theory of a conscious reality it doesn't even matter whether Pam interpreted her experience correctly or not; but a correct interpretation of her experience would essentially cripple any theory of a non-conscious reality. Because it's a closed, exclusionary theory it requires the blind assumption irrespective of the available evidence or probabilities that Pam's experience (and others like it) are all false or incorrectly interpreted. Given what we know of human experience, the theory of a non-conscious reality requires a much more exacting set of conditions to hold in order to be true, contrary to many reported observations, which makes it considerably less plausible than the more open alternative - the extrapolation from our certainty that consciousness is real to the likelihood that reality is conscious.

Blather. Go sell your snake oil somewhere else.

 

[gboisjo]

Where are you getting this idea that “non-physical” and “nothing” are the same thing thing?

Everything in the universe has a physical basis, why is that so hard for you to understand.

 

[gboisjo]

As I said, while we obviously don't know whether Pam's experience occurred at the same time period of her operation as the EEG flatline, a proponent of materialism would have to simply assume blindly that it could not have despite the lack of evidence supporting that assumption. The pattern is familiar and entirely predictable:
- Observational evidence is provided for miraculous healing or consciousness without brain activity or whatever else
- Someone proposes an ad hoc scenario which might be true, but is far from certain and essentially amounts to explaining away the evidence
- Atheists embrace the ad hoc speculation as gods' own truth and declare the observational evidence 'debunked' and therefore not Real Evidence (TM) at all, and continue to proclaim that there is "no evidence" against their own pet theories (which of course they themselves have not provided any evidence for, but that's okay because they weren't the ones who "made the initial proposal" as you put it )

The alternative explanation in the case of Pam Reynolds is certainly possible, though hardly convincing as it requires several distinct variables to be true none of which besides perhaps the last is especially likely even in isolation: That Pam had anaesthesia awareness; that Pam heard sounds and speech through her blocked ears; that Pam somehow interpreted the drill sound well enough to describe a tool she'd never seen, along with various other inferences about her surgery; and that Pam misperceived the timeline of her experience relative to the surgery and specifically EEG flatline. In any other case we'd consider this series of variables higly unlikely, perhaps somewhere in the range of 10 to 20%; but because of the remarkable implications if that series of variables were not true, we might generously suppose that Pam's interpretation of her experience is only 60 or 70% likely rather than 80 or 90%.

The point is that under the theory of a conscious reality it doesn't even matter whether Pam interpreted her experience correctly or not; but a correct interpretation of her experience would essentially cripple any theory of a non-conscious reality. Because it's a closed, exclusionary theory it requires the blind assumption irrespective of the available evidence or probabilities that Pam's experience (and others like it) are all false or incorrectly interpreted. Given what we know of human experience, the theory of a non-conscious reality requires a much more exacting set of conditions to hold in order to be true, contrary to many reported observations, which makes it considerably less plausible than the more open alternative - the extrapolation from our certainty that consciousness is real to the likelihood that reality is conscious.

When you go on and on and on, nobody reads your post.

Condensing your points would do you and your post a huge favor.

 

[gboisjo]

I'd actually already hinted at a fourth reason also, which I didn't include above because what I'd mentioned of it in a previous post was only a fairly minor point, but on reflection is probably even more important than #3 above:

4 > There are plausible though not conclusive counter-examples to the theory that brains are necessary for consciousness even in humans, such as the case of Pam Reynolds' documented experience of vivid consciousness during an operation involving clinical death and total EEG flatline. Note that while the theory of a conscious reality is perfectly compatible with brains being necessary for consciousness in humans, evidence that brain activity may not be necessary for consciousness even in humans would pretty much cripple any materialist view. Thus while we obviously don't know whether Pam's experience occurred at the same time period of her operation as the EEG flatline, a proponent of materialism would have to simply assume blindly that it could not have despite the lack of evidence supporting that assumption. In other words the idea of a non-conscious reality is a closed, exclusionary theory which makes it inherently less plausible than more open theories since it requires a more exacting set of conditions to hold in order for it to be true, which are often contrary to people's reported observations.​

In short no brain, no reality, everything has a physical basis, molecules, etc.

Simple common sense in 2024.

 

[devildavid]

As I said, while we obviously don't know whether Pam's experience occurred at the same time period of her operation as the EEG flatline, a proponent of materialism would have to simply assume blindly that it could not have despite the lack of evidence supporting that assumption. The pattern is familiar and entirely predictable:
- Observational evidence is provided for miraculous healing or consciousness without brain activity or whatever else
- Someone proposes an ad hoc scenario which might be true, but is far from certain and essentially amounts to explaining away the evidence
- Atheists embrace the ad hoc speculation as gods' own truth and declare the observational evidence 'debunked' and therefore not Real Evidence (TM) at all, and continue to proclaim that there is "no evidence" against their own pet theories (which of course they themselves have not provided any evidence for, but that's okay because they weren't the ones who "made the initial proposal" as you put it )

The alternative explanation in the case of Pam Reynolds is certainly possible, though hardly convincing as it requires several distinct variables to be true none of which besides perhaps the last is especially likely even in isolation: That Pam had anaesthesia awareness; that Pam heard sounds and speech through her blocked ears; that Pam somehow interpreted the drill sound well enough to describe a tool she'd never seen, along with various other inferences about her surgery; and that Pam misperceived the timeline of her experience relative to the surgery and specifically EEG flatline. In any other case we'd consider this series of variables higly unlikely, perhaps somewhere in the range of 10 to 20%; but because of the remarkable implications if that series of variables were not true, we might generously suppose that Pam's interpretation of her experience is only 60 or 70% likely rather than 80 or 90%.

The point is that under the theory of a conscious reality it doesn't even matter whether Pam interpreted her experience correctly or not; but a correct interpretation of her experience would essentially cripple any theory of a non-conscious reality. Because it's a closed, exclusionary theory it requires the blind assumption irrespective of the available evidence or probabilities that Pam's experience (and others like it) are all false or incorrectly interpreted. Given what we know of human experience, the theory of a non-conscious reality requires a much more exacting set of conditions to hold in order to be true, contrary to many reported observations, which makes it considerably less plausible than the more open alternative - the extrapolation from our certainty that consciousness is real to the likelihood that reality is conscious.

This is not evidence of anything. Personal experiences are not evidence of anything beyond the experience.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104397005

 

[Questerr]

Everything in the universe has a physical basis, why is that so hard for you to understand.

Have you examined everything in the universe?

 

[Mithrae]

This is not evidence of anything. Personal experiences are not evidence of anything beyond the experience.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104397005

When the question is "Can someone have any experience without brain activity?," the mere occurrence of that personal experience is very important evidence. While the alleged out-of-body aspects of Pam's experience could be interesting on their own, they're tremendously overshadowed by the consciousness-without-brain-activity aspect of it. So the important question here is the timing; did her experience extend through the whole operation including the clinical death/EEG flatline period as it seemed to Pam herself, or did it merely occur under anaesthesia awareness (with assorted ad hoc coincidences to explain away the purported out-of-body aspects of her report).

 

[Mithrae]

When you go on and on and on, nobody reads your post.

Condensing your points would do you and your post a huge favor.

They are condensed. The forum has a 5,000 character limit which is pretty tight when allowing for URLs, quoting others' posts and so on, yet most of my posts (including that one) don't even approach that limit. I realize that a generation raised on Twitter and TV with ad breaks every three minutes might struggle to digest concepts that can't be expressed as a simple one-liner, but doing real justice to the nuances of most issues would really require more than a thousand-word post; it's usually enough for a decent summary pending further discussion. You may not have noticed that in the post immediately preceding that one @watsup (who is the most frequent critic of my supposed wordiness) decided to attack me as being "dishonest" because I "did not include the entire story": Utterly pathetic that you guys have to stoop to such feeble personal attacks as these, and even moreso how inconsistent these petulant demands turn out to be.

"You're arrogant because you write too much"... "Now you're a liar for not writing enough"... "Now no-one cares because you're writing too much again!"

 

[watsup]

Utterly pathetic that you guys have to stoop to such feeble personal attacks as these,

Oh quit whining. Yes, we notice how often you include insults of both a personal and general nature towards individuals and atheists in your theses, so physician heal thyself.

 

[Mithrae]

Oh quit whining. Yes, we notice how often you include insults of both a personal and general nature towards individuals and atheists in your theses, so physician heal thyself.

You started a thread declaring that "Agnostics are believers" regarding "such an outrageous concept as a God," "every bit as much as a Tosca or a Daisy or the rest of them"... and then you want to pretend that you're surprised at a civil but fairly robust discussion

There's nothing wrong with robust discussion for those so inclined; it's the specific hypocrisy in play here that I highlighted, in which you have constantly harped on about my supposed wordiness... then turned around to accuse me of "dishonesty" for "not including the whole story"... then doubled back again to dismiss a slightly more extended treatment of the matter as "blather" and "snake oil" rather than actually discussing it... which I was quietly ignoring until gboisjo followed up with some similarly empty comments.

IMO you guys would be better off not responding at all than posting these one-liners which suggest both that you've got nothing of substance to say, and that it really is the antagonism - the desire to feel like you've won or scored some kind of point or at least had the last word - that drives many of your posts. I've noticed that in addition to my supposed wordiness, you also complain that I ignore many of the points you've made, and it's true; I know I'm not changing anyone's mind here so if I don't think something is worth responding to, I often just don't respond. It's that easy!

 

[watsup]

You started a thread declaring that "Agnostics are believers" regarding "such an outrageous concept as a God," "every bit as much as a Tosca or a Daisy or the rest of them"... and then you want to pretend that you're surprised at a civil but fairly robust discussion

There's nothing wrong with robust discussion for those so inclined; it's the specific hypocrisy in play here that I highlighted, in which you have constantly harped on about my supposed wordiness... then turned around to accuse me of "dishonesty" for "not including the whole story"... then doubled back again to dismiss a slightly more extended treatment of the matter as "blather" and "snake oil" rather than actually discussing it... which I was quietly ignoring until gboisjo followed up with some similarly empty comments.

IMO you guys would be better off not responding at all than posting these one-liners which suggest both that you've got nothing of substance to say, and that it really is the antagonism - the desire to feel like you've won or scored some kind of point or at least had the last word - that drives many of your posts. I've noticed that in addition to my supposed wordiness, you also complain that I ignore many of the points you've made, and it's true; I know I'm not changing anyone's mind here so if I don't think something is worth responding to, I often just don't respond. It's that easy!

Thank you for immediately proving post #336 re whining.

 

[devildavid]

Have you examined everything in the universe?

No one has. But this doesn’t mean that anything we imagine could possible be true. Imagination does not define what is possible.

 

[devildavid]

When the question is "Can someone have any experience without brain activity?," the mere occurrence of that personal experience is very important evidence. While the alleged out-of-body aspects of Pam's experience could be interesting on their own, they're tremendously overshadowed by the consciousness-without-brain-activity aspect of it. So the important question here is the timing; did her experience extend through the whole operation including the clinical death/EEG flatline period as it seemed to Pam herself, or did it merely occur under anaesthesia awareness (with assorted ad hoc coincidences to explain away the purported out-of-body aspects of her report).

That person was not brain dead. She had brain activity. There was no consciousness without brain activity ever demonstrated in that case or any other.

 

[Questerr]

No one has. But this doesn’t mean that anything we imagine could possible be true. Imagination does not define what is possible.

Then on what logic can one claim that “everything in the universe has a physical basis”?

Such a claim would require having examined the entire universe.

 

[Mithrae]

That person was not brain dead. She had brain activity. There was no consciousness without brain activity ever demonstrated in that case or any other.

"During this procedure, Reynolds' body temperature was lowered to 50 °F (10 °C), her breathing and heartbeat stopped, and the blood drained from her head. Her eyes were closed with tape and small ear plugs with speakers were placed in her ears. These speakers emitted audible clicks which were used to check the function of the brain stem to ensure that she had a flat electroencephalography (EEG)—indicating a non-responsive brain—before the operation proceeded."​

How well do you imagine brains normally function at 50 °F without breathing, heartbeat or even residual blood (with an EEG flatline despite loud stimulus)?

The issue is that (if memory serves from past reading) this complete brain-dead period lasted less than an hour of a seven-hour operation, so while Reynolds reported a single continuous experience throughout there's obviously no way to verify that; if she'd been unconscious during that flatline period, obviously she wouldn't remember it! Consciousness during that period would be by far the most interesting aspect of this case, but ultimately it boils down to little more than opinion one way or another: I myself don't know and don't especially care; but while spiritualist and 'believer' types might insist that she surely was conscious during that period, materialists must insist equally dogmatically and with just as little evidence that she surely was not conscious during that period.

The less interesting but more debatable parts of the case are the 'veridical' ('coinciding with reality') aspects of her out of body experience, which are conceptually distinct - OBE's without brain-death are relatively commonplace - but relevant in that if it was a genuine out-of-body experience that would lend considerable weight to the conclusion of consciousness beyond brain activity, whereas if it was merely a case of anesthesia awareness it would greatly undermine Pam's interpretation of her experience. As I pointed out to Watsup, the anesthesia awareness interpretation of the evidence is certainly possible - maybe even plausible - but it's far from certain; in any other situation I think we'd grant the series of coincidences and circumstances required for that explanation no higher than a 10 or 20% likelihood at best. (In fact the prior probability of anaesthesia awareness alone, just the first of several elements required for this 'naturalist' interpretation, would have been around 0.5% based on frequency of occurrence in surgical patients at the time, but that's obviously modified based on posterior information.)

The point wasn't that this is an absolute proof of consciousness without brain activity: The point is that in order to maintain confidence in the view that consciousness only emerges from active neural networks like brains, one must somehow convince oneself that the tenuous 'naturalist' explanation is an absolute disproof of Pam's interpretation, and various others like it... which it just isn't, not even close.

 

[gboisjo]

"During this procedure, Reynolds' body temperature was lowered to 50 °F (10 °C), her breathing and heartbeat stopped, and the blood drained from her head. Her eyes were closed with tape and small ear plugs with speakers were placed in her ears. These speakers emitted audible clicks which were used to check the function of the brain stem to ensure that she had a flat electroencephalography (EEG)—indicating a non-responsive brain—before the operation proceeded."​

How well do you imagine brains normally function at 50 °F without breathing, heartbeat or even residual blood (with an EEG flatline despite loud stimulus)?

The issue is that (if memory serves from past reading) this complete brain-dead period lasted less than an hour of a seven-hour operation, so while Reynolds reported a single continuous experience throughout there's obviously no way to verify that; if she'd been unconscious during that flatline period, obviously she wouldn't remember it! Consciousness during that period would be by far the most interesting aspect of this case, but ultimately it boils down to little more than opinion one way or another: I myself don't know and don't especially care; but while spiritualist and 'believer' types might insist that she surely was conscious during that period, materialists must insist equally dogmatically and with just as little evidence that she surely was not conscious during that period.

The less interesting but more debatable parts of the case are the 'veridical' ('coinciding with reality') aspects of her out of body experience, which are conceptually distinct - OBE's without brain-death are relatively commonplace - but relevant in that if it was a genuine out-of-body experience that would lend considerable weight to the conclusion of consciousness beyond brain activity, whereas if it was merely a case of anesthesia awareness it would greatly undermine Pam's interpretation of her experience. As I pointed out to Watsup, the anesthesia awareness interpretation of the evidence is certainly possible - maybe even plausible - but it's far from certain; in any other situation I think we'd grant the series of coincidences and circumstances required for that explanation no higher than a 10 or 20% likelihood at best. (In fact the prior probability of anaesthesia awareness alone, just the first of several elements required for this 'naturalist' interpretation, would have been around 0.5% based on frequency of occurrence in surgical patients at the time, but that's obviously modified based on posterior information.)

The point wasn't that this is an absolute proof of consciousness without brain activity: The point is that in order to maintain confidence in the view that consciousness only emerges from active neural networks like brains, one must somehow convince oneself that the tenuous 'naturalist' explanation is an absolute disproof of Pam's interpretation, and various others like it... which it just isn't, not even close.

Take away the brain and there is nothing, one sentence wraps it all up.

 

[gboisjo]

Then on what logic can one claim that “everything in the universe has a physical basis”?

Such a claim would require having examined the entire universe.

No it doesn't, deductive reasoning based on widely accepted facts or premises.

Everything has a physical basis even the forces like gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

Nothing is born out of nothing, it speaks to gods, what made god as understood through the bible.

Its simple cause and effect, everything has a cause.

 

[devildavid]

Then on what logic can one claim that “everything in the universe has a physical basis”?

Such a claim would require having examined the entire universe.

Because there is no good reason to think that traveling brings us to a non physical place.

 

[devildavid]

"During this procedure, Reynolds' body temperature was lowered to 50 °F (10 °C), her breathing and heartbeat stopped, and the blood drained from her head. Her eyes were closed with tape and small ear plugs with speakers were placed in her ears. These speakers emitted audible clicks which were used to check the function of the brain stem to ensure that she had a flat electroencephalography (EEG)—indicating a non-responsive brain—before the operation proceeded."​

How well do you imagine brains normally function at 50 °F without breathing, heartbeat or even residual blood (with an EEG flatline despite loud stimulus)?

The issue is that (if memory serves from past reading) this complete brain-dead period lasted less than an hour of a seven-hour operation, so while Reynolds reported a single continuous experience throughout there's obviously no way to verify that; if she'd been unconscious during that flatline period, obviously she wouldn't remember it! Consciousness during that period would be by far the most interesting aspect of this case, but ultimately it boils down to little more than opinion one way or another: I myself don't know and don't especially care; but while spiritualist and 'believer' types might insist that she surely was conscious during that period, materialists must insist equally dogmatically and with just as little evidence that she surely was not conscious during that period.

The less interesting but more debatable parts of the case are the 'veridical' ('coinciding with reality') aspects of her out of body experience, which are conceptually distinct - OBE's without brain-death are relatively commonplace - but relevant in that if it was a genuine out-of-body experience that would lend considerable weight to the conclusion of consciousness beyond brain activity, whereas if it was merely a case of anesthesia awareness it would greatly undermine Pam's interpretation of her experience. As I pointed out to Watsup, the anesthesia awareness interpretation of the evidence is certainly possible - maybe even plausible - but it's far from certain; in any other situation I think we'd grant the series of coincidences and circumstances required for that explanation no higher than a 10 or 20% likelihood at best. (In fact the prior probability of anaesthesia awareness alone, just the first of several elements required for this 'naturalist' interpretation, would have been around 0.5% based on frequency of occurrence in surgical patients at the time, but that's obviously modified based on posterior information.)

The point wasn't that this is an absolute proof of consciousness without brain activity: The point is that in order to maintain confidence in the view that consciousness only emerges from active neural networks like brains, one must somehow convince oneself that the tenuous 'naturalist' explanation is an absolute disproof of Pam's interpretation, and various others like it... which it just isn't, not even close.

So there really is no point to this at all. Her recounting the experience doesn’t show naturalistic explanations to be tenuous at all. This doesn’t put a dent in the confidence that consciousness emerges only from active neural networks like brains.

 

[watsup]

Then on what logic can one claim that “everything in the universe has a physical basis”?

Such a claim would require having examined the entire universe.

Extreme claims like this one are just a substitution for the “anything is possible” line of “debate”. We act on what we know, not on some ethereal claim of the need to know “everything”. You already know that it is impossible to “examine” everything in the universe, so it is just a trap door through which you drop so that you no longer have to engage in thoughtful discourse. If this is your criteria then, yes, you win. But the truth is that there is not an iota of objective, reality-based evidence that there is anything beyond the physical in our universe, which is the only universe that we know. If you wish to continue to deal in extreme word statements, that is up to you, but we will continue to deal in reality as we know it.

 

[watsup]

"During this procedure, Reynolds' body temperature was lowered to 50 °F (10 °C), her breathing and heartbeat stopped, and the blood drained from her head. Her eyes were closed with tape and small ear plugs with speakers were placed in her ears. These speakers emitted audible clicks which were used to check the function of the brain stem to ensure that she had a flat electroencephalography (EEG)—indicating a non-responsive brain—before the operation proceeded."​

How well do you imagine brains normally function at 50 °F without breathing, heartbeat or even residual blood (with an EEG flatline despite loud stimulus)?

The issue is that (if memory serves from past reading) this complete brain-dead period lasted less than an hour of a seven-hour operation, so while Reynolds reported a single continuous experience throughout there's obviously no way to verify that; if she'd been unconscious during that flatline period, obviously she wouldn't remember it! Consciousness during that period would be by far the most interesting aspect of this case, but ultimately it boils down to little more than opinion one way or another: I myself don't know and don't especially care; but while spiritualist and 'believer' types might insist that she surely was conscious during that period, materialists must insist equally dogmatically and with just as little evidence that she surely was not conscious during that period.

The less interesting but more debatable parts of the case are the 'veridical' ('coinciding with reality') aspects of her out of body experience, which are conceptually distinct - OBE's without brain-death are relatively commonplace - but relevant in that if it was a genuine out-of-body experience that would lend considerable weight to the conclusion of consciousness beyond brain activity, whereas if it was merely a case of anesthesia awareness it would greatly undermine Pam's interpretation of her experience. As I pointed out to Watsup, the anesthesia awareness interpretation of the evidence is certainly possible - maybe even plausible - but it's far from certain; in any other situation I think we'd grant the series of coincidences and circumstances required for that explanation no higher than a 10 or 20% likelihood at best. (In fact the prior probability of anaesthesia awareness alone, just the first of several elements required for this 'naturalist' interpretation, would have been around 0.5% based on frequency of occurrence in surgical patients at the time, but that's obviously modified based on posterior information.)

The point wasn't that this is an absolute proof of consciousness without brain activity: The point is that in order to maintain confidence in the view that consciousness only emerges from active neural networks like brains, one must somehow convince oneself that the tenuous 'naturalist' explanation is an absolute disproof of Pam's interpretation, and various others like it... which it just isn't, not even close.

Another word salad that means nothing. I have already shown the statement of an anesthesiologist whose knowledge of how people respond under anesthesia notes that it was most likely simply the type of “dreams” that people have in this state. For you to stake your entire claim on a single tenuous event only showa the weakness of it. Are you familiar with the term “grasping at straws”?

 

[Questerr]

No it doesn't, deductive reasoning based on widely accepted facts or premises.

Everything has a physical basis even the forces like gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

Nothing is born out of nothing, it speaks to gods, what made god as understood through the bible.

Its simple cause and effect, everything has a cause.

Where do you get the claim that a non-physical basis is “nothing”?

 

[watsup]

Where do you get the claim that a non-physical basis is “nothing”?

What exactly do you claim is a part of this supposed “non-physical” element?