Did Randi die? [Archive]

Timothy

29th April 2006, 09:44 PM

I think the abscence of an NDE speaks volumes. Not choosing to waste his imagination on something which can't be proven, and certainly not wasting our time by reporting it, suggests to me he didn't have one. I guess when you have a firm grasp of physiology, there's no need for fantasies.
I assume the comment Randi made refers to the fact that his heart was stopped during bypass surgery. I'm not all that familiar with NDE claims. Are many of them while the NDEer is under full anesthesia? I thought most were from people who were conscious up through the near-death-incident, and not from those fully doped up.

Anyone heard of NDE reports from anyone undergoing a similar procedure?

(If NDE is a purely physiological phenomenon associated with the brain shutting down, then if one were fully under anesthesia, one wouldn't remember it ... or even experience it ... would one?)

- Timothy

CFLarsen

29th April 2006, 11:16 PM

Alternatively, if you spent your whole life speaking out against such things, and you actually did experience one, you could not tell anyone, or simply interpret it in terms of the worldview you practiced for your whole life.

What is wrong with the latter?

Anyway, I asked Randi weeks ago if he had any NDEs, and he said no.

Rasmus

30th April 2006, 03:43 AM

What is wrong with the latter

Indeed. "I saw a white light, but it didn't convince me of God" doesn't seem to be a bad thing to say to me. So what if the woos'd claim you were in denial for saying it?

TheBoyPaj

30th April 2006, 03:50 AM

If I had a NDE, I wouldn't be afraid of telling people about it. After all, if it's just a symptom of chemical processes, it's not much different to being drunk or having a dream and people tell others about that all the time.

CFLarsen

30th April 2006, 03:57 AM

Indeed. "I saw a white light, but it didn't convince me of God" doesn't seem to be a bad thing to say to me. So what if the woos'd claim you were in denial for saying it?
It would say a lot more about the woos.

Pyrrho

30th April 2006, 05:39 AM

So, Randi denies that he had an NDE?

Evasion noted.

(Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm illustrating a logical fallacy. Five points to whomever correctly identifies the fallacy)

Mike D.

30th April 2006, 07:23 AM

Well, he says he did (http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-04/042806boots.html#i3).

That brings up the question, did [Randi] have any "near death experiences"? If so, what? If not, can it be a bit of evidence to debunk NDE's?

Tricky,

From what I've read, studies of NDEs have shown that relatively low percentages of those in the studies who had been clinically dead reported having NDEs. I think the percentages have been between 10 - 20% (but I certainly don't claim to be an expert on these studies). So, I'm not sure how singling out Randi as someone who was clinically dead but did not report having an NDE can be used to "debunk" NDEs. Rather than focusing on the experience (or non-experience) of one person, the question for me becomes: what are the implications of the fact (if it be a fact) that the percentages of experiencers are so small?

Mike

Suezoled

30th April 2006, 07:46 AM

So, Randi denies that he had an NDE?

Evasion noted.

(Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm illustrating a logical fallacy. Five points to whomever correctly identifies the fallacy)
The fallacy of:
Ad Clausist Larsenum? <---it's a joke Claus!

Actually, if Randi died, I'm sure Sylvia Browne would be spouting messages about how she's in contact with him on the other side. Come to think of it, I'm sure she'd be spouting messages about how she's in contact with him on the other side even if he weren't on the other side.

CFLarsen

30th April 2006, 08:13 AM

The fallacy of:
Ad Clausist Larsenum? <---it's a joke Claus!

Tsk, tsk.

Pyrrho

30th April 2006, 08:14 AM

The fallacy of:
Ad Clausist Larsenum? <---it's a joke Claus!

Nope...I wasn't even thinking about Claus Larsen and I wasn't trying to criticize him...just to make it clear.

Actually, if Randi died, I'm sure Sylvia Browne would be spouting messages about how she's in contact with him on the other side. Come to think of it, I'm sure she'd be spouting messages about how she's in contact with him on the other side even if he weren't on the other side.
Sylvia knows which side of her bread is buttered. There's no money in channelling dead skeptics. If there were, we'd be getting messages about "Billions and billions of souls," from alleged spirit Carl Sagan.

skepticdoc

30th April 2006, 09:36 AM

Pyrrho

30th April 2006, 09:42 AM

Help me! I am not very bright, where is the fallacy?
It is contained in the phrase, "So, Randi denies that he had an NDE?" and compounded by "Evasion noted." The core of the fallacy is that the question establishes a false premise: that Randi had an NDE but denies it. "Evasion noted" presumes to criticize him for denying the false premise established by the first question.

This is probably in poor taste, given the serious circumstances, so I apologize to anyone I've offended, and for even trying to make light of this situation at all. Such was not my intent but lack of ill intent is no excuse for incivility.

Like many others, I am relieved that Mr. Randi is alive and recovering from his brush with death. It's no laughing matter.

Achán hiNidráne

30th April 2006, 09:49 AM

The fallacy of:
Ad Clausist Larsenum? <---it's a joke Claus!

Actually, if Randi died, I'm sure Sylvia Browne would be spouting messages about how she's in contact with him on the other side. Come to think of it, I'm sure she'd be spouting messages about how she's in contact with him on the other side even if he weren't on the other side.

Hmmm... Maybe Randi should pull a Houdini and devise a code word that his alleged spirit could reveal on the other side in case Sylvia or some other scumbag medium (oops, sorry for the redundancy) comes a calling.;)

Tricky

30th April 2006, 09:49 AM

Tricky,

From what I've read, studies of NDEs have shown that relatively low percentages of those in the studies who had been clinically dead reported having NDEs. I think the percentages have been between 10 - 20% (but I certainly don't claim to be an expert on these studies). So, I'm not sure how singling out Randi as someone who was clinically dead but did not report having an NDE can be used to "debunk" NDEs. Rather than focusing on the experience (or non-experience) of one person, the question for me becomes: what are the implications of the fact (if it be a fact) that the percentages of experiencers are so small?

Mike
You are correct, Mike. I thought of that as I wrote it, and I certainly don't take the position that everybody who has been "clinically dead" should have something resembling an NDE, especially if it happened under general anesthesia. I merely found it an interesting irony that one who has long debunked NDEs as paranormal events actually had the chance (though not a certain thing) to experience one.

Roadtoad

30th April 2006, 03:42 PM

Alternatively, if you spent your whole life speaking out against such things, and you actually did experience one, you could not tell anyone, or simply interpret it in terms of the worldview you practiced for your whole life.

That would only be true if you were dishonest in the extreme. Since Randi has not demonstrated any dishonesty, I would say that my earlier assumption was correct.

Pyrrho

30th April 2006, 05:51 PM

That would only be true if you were dishonest in the extreme. Since Randi has not demonstrated any dishonesty, I would say that my earlier assumption was correct.
I'm unable to find it, but in one of Randi's Commentaries some time ago he related an "out of body experience" he'd had--along with the rational explanation. I think he'd do the same if he had experienced an NDE.

skepticdoc

30th April 2006, 06:00 PM

Well, he says he did (http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-04/042806boots.html#i3).

That brings up the question, did he have any "near death experiences"? If so, what? If not, can it be a bit of evidence to debunk NDE's?

Of course, the important thing is that he wasn't completely dead. Thanks to modern medicine, he will be around for some time, giving grief to the quacks, frauds and charlatans.

The Honorable Amazing One is not a formal medical professional, so I need to keep that into perspective, when I ask:

What is your definition of Death?

There is a formal Brain Death protocol to label a body an "organ donor".

I consider death irreversible, nobody has ever been resuscitated after being pronounced dead, or reanimated after cryogenics. Many humans have had cessation of circulation, or respiration for a brief period, and they have been resuscitated ( restoration of cardiac output, ventilation and neurologic function ).

In physiology there is a description of organ death, "no flow" at the level of the arterioles, when the cells surrounding the arteriole stop receiving the oxygen required for homeostatic balance, this stops the ATPase/ion pump of the membrane, the cell swells and the blood flow is blocked "forever", this is death at the cellular level. Different organs have their own thresholds, but the brain starts to die after three to five minutes.

I will dare to assume that Mr. Randi's heart stopped ( asystole or ventricullar fibrillation ) but he was promptly "resuscitated". I will jump to my assertion that he never "died". ( I am fearful of being accused of Trolling!! )

Jeff Corey

30th April 2006, 07:26 PM

SteveGrenard

30th April 2006, 08:36 PM

Randi wrote in this weeks Commentary:

As regular readers will know, I’m currently involved in recovering from a double cardiac bypass procedure. I died. I was resuscitated, and was operated on without the use of any sort of quackery.

Skeptic doc wrote:

I will dare to assume that Mr. Randi's heart stopped ( asystole or ventricullar fibrillation ) but he was promptly "resuscitated". I will jump to my assertion that he never "died".

A recent study on NDE says this about the % incidence of NDEs:

The incidence of NDE in the dying will surely remain unknown. Investigations necessarily contain survivors without substantial injury to the substrates of language and memory. Some studies have intentionally selected subjects with complete neurologic recovery. Although there are many causes of NDE, prospective studies have focused on survivors of cardiac arrest, with incidences of 6.3% (4/63), 10% (12/116) and 12% (41/344).

Nelson KR et al: Does the arousal system contribute to the near death experience?. J Neurology 66 (Apr 2006):1003-1009.

So one out of ten (10%) seems like a reasonable estimation.

Suezoled

1st May 2006, 04:30 AM

Tsk, tsk.

Yup, it's the fallacy of "I don't actually need to provide evidence, especially for this Larsen guy!"

CFLarsen

1st May 2006, 05:43 AM

Yup, it's the fallacy of "I don't actually need to provide evidence, especially for this Larsen guy!"
Indeed.

CFLarsen

1st May 2006, 05:44 AM

Let's just say that, if Randi died, he is one lively corpse!

dogjones

1st May 2006, 06:39 AM

It is contained in the phrase, "So, Randi denies that he had an NDE?" and compounded by "Evasion noted." The core of the fallacy is that the question establishes a false premise: that Randi had an NDE but denies it. "Evasion noted" presumes to criticize him for denying the false premise established by the first question.

I don't see how the question "So Randi denies that he had an NDE?" establishes the premise that he had an NDE but denies it. Yes, the question presupposes that he was asked whether he had one, but not that he had one.

I would see it if the question was worded "So Randi denies the *fact* that he had an NDE?".

treble_head

1st May 2006, 03:40 PM

I don't see how the question "So Randi denies that he had an NDE?" establishes the premise that he had an NDE but denies it. Yes, the question presupposes that he was asked whether he had one, but not that he had one.

In proper language use, you're absolutely correct. In common usage, however, as words lose their meaning, the term denial has come to imply speaking or believing against truth.

By compounding it with his "Evasion noted." statement, Pyrrho merely pointed toward the bias of the colloquialistic meaning and strengthened that meaning. I don't actually know the name of the fallacy, but it was a good'un.

ruach1

1st May 2006, 04:05 PM

CFLarsen

1st May 2006, 11:35 PM

He did have an NDE--just not the "woo" kind.
Is experiencing nothing an experience?

Curnir

1st May 2006, 11:51 PM

Is experiencing nothing an experience?

Hmm tricky question.

I'd like to rephrase it.

If you are not aware of *something* happening have you experienced *something*?

To this question I'd answer yes (sort of).
ie if you get knocked unconsious and get mugged, you will still have experienced a mugging even though you weren't aware of it. At least your body and wallet will have experienced it.

orphia nay

2nd May 2006, 01:12 AM

Well, he says he did (http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-04/042806boots.html#i3).

That brings up the question, did he have any "near death experiences"? If so, what? If not, can it be a bit of evidence to debunk NDE's?

Of course, the important thing is that he wasn't completely dead. Thanks to modern medicine, he will be around for some time, giving grief to the quacks, frauds and charlatans.

[...]
Anyway, I asked Randi weeks ago if he had any NDEs, and he said no.

So, Randi denies that he had an NDE?

Evasion noted.

(Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm illustrating a logical fallacy. Five points to whomever correctly identifies the fallacy)

[The fallacy] is contained in the phrase, "So, Randi denies that he had an NDE?" and compounded by "Evasion noted." The core of the fallacy is that the question establishes a false premise: that Randi had an NDE but denies it. "Evasion noted" presumes to criticize him for denying the false premise established by the first question.

I'm not pointing any fingers (the quotes were to illustrate what I see as the theme of the discussion), but we all need to be careful not to make the fallacy of Equivocation, whereby we use the same term for two separate ideas - for example, "He had an NDE, but he didn't have an NDE".

He did have an NDE--just not the "woo" kind.

Is experiencing nothing an experience?

Yes, good points.

For the purpose of this conversation at least, we might like to use the terms 'Medical Near Death Experience' or 'MNDE', and 'Paranormal Near Death Experience', or 'PNDE', or perhaps 'Religious Near Death Experience', 'RNDE' - just a suggestion.

treble_head

2nd May 2006, 01:13 AM

Hmm tricky question.

I'd like to rephrase it.

If you are not aware of *something* happening have you experienced *something*?

To this question I'd answer yes (sort of).
ie if you get knocked unconsious and get mugged, you will still have experienced a mugging even though you weren't aware of it. At least your body and wallet will have experienced it.

but if you're unconcious and someone defiles you (shaking your head or messing with you in an unprovable way), they still did it.

CFLarsen

2nd May 2006, 02:30 AM

Hmm tricky question.

No, it wasn't Tricky's. It was mine. ;)

I'd like to rephrase it.

If you are not aware of *something* happening have you experienced *something*?

To this question I'd answer yes (sort of).
ie if you get knocked unconsious and get mugged, you will still have experienced a mugging even though you weren't aware of it. At least your body and wallet will have experienced it.

How can you body experience something that you aren't aware of?

Are you thinking of scars/wounds?

Curnir

2nd May 2006, 03:09 AM

No, it wasn't Tricky's. It was mine. ;)

Fair enuff :p

How can you body experience something that you aren't aware of?

Are you thinking of scars/wounds?

1. Beeing knocked unconsious.
That would probably leave a mark.
2. The mugging.
Well that depends on how rough the mugger are (in the leaving a mark sense anyway)

Also. Lets say I was to undergo an operation in the general stomach area, and that the surgeon notices that my appendix is inflamed, and removes that 'on the fly' so to say. When I wake up I will not know that I've had an appendectomy (untill the surgeon informs me that preformed the extra 'cut)... but my body will most definetely have experienced one.

and. (never done this, I swear)
If I were to tickle a sleeping person on the sole of his/her feet, the feet would twitch. ie the body has experienced the tickling even though the person isn't aware of it (might be a bad example).

CFLarsen

2nd May 2006, 03:19 AM

1. Beeing knocked unconsious.
That would probably leave a mark.
2. The mugging.
Well that depends on how rough the mugger are (in the leaving a mark sense anyway)

But if that mark disappears completely, will your body have experienced the mugging?

Also. Lets say I was to undergo an operation in the general stomach area, and that the surgeon notices that my appendix is inflamed, and removes that 'on the fly' so to say. When I wake up I will not know that I've had an appendectomy (untill the surgeon informs me that preformed the extra 'cut)... but my body will most definetely have experienced one.

And if there is no mark? Will your body have experienced it? Isn't your body dependent on you experiencing something?

and. (never done this, I swear)

Rrrright... :)

If I were to tickle a sleeping person on the sole of his/her feet the feet would twitch. ie the body has experienced the tickeling even though the person isn't aware of it (might be a bad example).

But how will your body have "experienced" it? How can your body experience something that you don't experience?

Curnir

2nd May 2006, 03:43 AM

But if that mark disappears completely, will your body have experienced the mugging?
My body will have been searched, prodded and touched, yes.

And if there is no mark? Will your body have experienced it? Isn't your body dependent on you experiencing something?
The appendix is gone, no matter if I know that it is gone or not.

Rrrright... :)

*Looks innocent*

But how will your body have "experienced" it? How can your body experience something that you don't experience?
'you' as in the 'conscious you'.

If I were to write 'smurf' on the forehead of a sleeping (and drunk) friend.
When will his forehead have experienced the touch of the magic marker.
1. When I wrote on it.
2. When he was made aware of the fact that he had 'smurf' written on his forhead. (saw it in a mirror for example).

btw.
This thread begins to look like.
If a tree falls in the forrest and tere is no one there to witness it.
Will it make a noise?

Roadtoad

2nd May 2006, 04:18 AM

Is experiencing nothing an experience?

Well, there's always watching Olivia Newton-John doing anything. That's about as close to nothing as you can get. :D

Suezoled

2nd May 2006, 04:25 AM

Indeed.

You love me!

CFLarsen

2nd May 2006, 04:42 AM

My body will have been searched, prodded and touched, yes.

That is not the same as your body having had an experience.

Will a rock similarly have had an experience, if it had been searched, prodded and touched?[/QUOTE]

The appendix is gone, no matter if I know that it is gone or not.

How will your body "know" this?

'you' as in the 'conscious you'.

If I were to write 'smurf' on the forehead of a sleeping (and drunk) friend.
When will his forehead have experienced the touch of the magic marker.
1. When I wrote on it.
2. When he was made aware of the fact that he had 'smurf' written on his forhead. (saw it in a mirror for example).

But there is a difference between his forehead having an experience and your friend having an experience. How is a forehead "conscious"?

btw.
This thread begins to look like.
If a tree falls in the forrest and tere is no one there to witness it.
Will it make a noise?

Exactly. How do we verify that there is a noise?

CFLarsen

2nd May 2006, 04:44 AM

Well, there's always watching Olivia Newton-John doing anything. That's about as close to nothing as you can get. :D
Thanks a lot for that image....

CFLarsen

2nd May 2006, 04:49 AM

You love me!
You really love me!

Curnir

2nd May 2006, 05:28 AM

That is not the same as your body having had an experience.

Will a rock similarly have had an experience, if it had been searched, prodded and touched?
Hmm. I hope this will be understandable (danish is afterall closely related to swedish)
Not experience as in 'upplevelse' but as in 'utsatt för' (subjected to)

How will your body "know" this?

???

But there is a difference between his forehead having an experience and your friend having an experience. How is a forehead "conscious"?

The forehead will have experienced (been subjected to) the touch of the magic marker.

Exactly. How do we verify that there is a noise?
Ah and there is the rub, so to say.
What is noise? I say that noise is subjective, someone needs to be there to decide wither or not the sound that the tree makes is noise or not.
Some consider techno 'noise', some consider it music (replace technor with music style of choise)

CFLarsen

2nd May 2006, 05:50 AM

Hmm. I hope this will be understandable (danish is afterall closely related to swedish)
Not experience as in 'upplevelse' but as in 'utsatt för' (subjected to)

Svensk jävla... ;)

Same thing, though: How does your body know what it has been subjected to, if it doesn't have a conscience?

???

See above.

The forehead will have experienced (been subjected to) the touch of the magic marker.

Can it "know" it?

Ah and there is the rub, so to say.
What is noise? I say that noise is subjective, someone needs to be there to decide wither or not the sound that the tree makes is noise or not.

Precisely: We need an outside entity to "record" what has happened. And we have to be able to check it.

However: This doesn't mean that we can't deduct that a tree falling in the forrest makes a sound. If all trees that we observe falling down make a sound, we have no reason to deduct that they only make a sound when we observe them.

E.g., we could simply set up a tape recorder (in these days, an MP3-recorder), to see if the "tape" caught anything.

Some consider techno 'noise', some consider it music (replace technor with music style of choise)

Don't go there. Please.

Jesus Baby Daddy

2nd May 2006, 09:08 AM

jiggerypokery

That might possibly be the greatest word I have ever read. I stopped reading the thread after it. I've already used it twice! :D

Mercutio

2nd May 2006, 09:10 AM

Same thing, though: How does your body know what it has been subjected to, if it doesn't have a conscience?
...note the silly questions that dualistic language leads us to. "Experience" is a loaded term, allowing Claus to quibble about a hair-splitting question that is completely irrelevant. X happens. If we divide "X happens", completely arbitrarily, into "Y happens physically, and Z happens mentally", and then posit that in a particular argument Z could not have happened, we may then falsely imply that X did not really happen.

Sorry, what really did not happen is the division of X into Y and Z. That was merely wordplay, using dualistic language when none was needed.

Our awareness of stuff ebbs and flows; we do not need to posit complete unconsciousness to know that the "experience" of something is only one part of the whole event, and something that can only artificially be removed from it. Each person's "experience" of TAM was different. So what? That neither makes their experience more important than the event they were experiencing, nor makes their experience irrelevant. What it does do is state the obvious; we each have our own perspective.

Sheesh.

ruach1

2nd May 2006, 11:12 AM

Is experiencing nothing an experience?
Well, yes it is, but that's not what I meant. (I see an OP materializing somewhere/somewho...)

Randi was on an operating table. He was near death, or he was dead according to some definitions of death about which I am not qualified to talk. Whether he was conscious in the moment or not, he was still present (at least in body), and the doctors/nurses told him about it and how he came through.

Randi may not have known it at the time, but he knows now which, as his commentary may suggest, is somewhat meaningful to him.

Thus he did have an NDE--just not one with angels, tunnels of light, and/or Aunt Tilley beckoning him to come into the light.

CFLarsen

2nd May 2006, 11:41 AM

...note the silly questions that dualistic language leads us to. "Experience" is a loaded term, allowing Claus to quibble about a hair-splitting question that is completely irrelevant. X happens. If we divide "X happens", completely arbitrarily, into "Y happens physically, and Z happens mentally", and then posit that in a particular argument Z could not have happened, we may then falsely imply that X did not really happen.

Sorry, what really did not happen is the division of X into Y and Z. That was merely wordplay, using dualistic language when none was needed.

Our awareness of stuff ebbs and flows; we do not need to posit complete unconsciousness to know that the "experience" of something is only one part of the whole event, and something that can only artificially be removed from it. Each person's "experience" of TAM was different. So what? That neither makes their experience more important than the event they were experiencing, nor makes their experience irrelevant. What it does do is state the obvious; we each have our own perspective.

Sheesh.

....quibble? :p

CFLarsen

2nd May 2006, 11:44 AM

Well, yes it is, but that's not what I meant. (I see an OP materializing somewhere/somewho...)

Randi was on an operating table. He was near death, or he was dead according to some definitions of death about which I am not qualified to talk. Whether he was conscious in the moment or not, he was still present (at least in body), and the doctors/nurses told him about it and how he came through.

Randi may not have known it at the time, but he knows now which, as his commentary may suggest, is somewhat meaningful to him.

Thus he did have an NDE--just not one with angels, tunnels of light, and/or Aunt Tilley beckoning him to come into the light.

No, he has been told that he was dead. He didn't have any "experience" at all of the event.

What you are suggesting is that we can have "experiences" of something that others tell us happened to us.

Last night, aliens abducted you. Now, you have an experience that aliens abducted you.

See the problem?

ruach1

2nd May 2006, 01:10 PM

CFLarsen;1612841]No, he has been told that he was dead. He didn't have any "experience" at all of the event.
What you are suggesting is that we can have "experiences" of something that others tell us happened to us.

Last night, aliens abducted you. Now, you have an experience that aliens abducted you.
See the problem?Yes and no.
The telling, the knowing, and the reacting to the event is the experience Randi had concerning an NDE, and if I had this happen to me (really happen to me) I would consider it to be a part of my experiential life.

The alien thing doesn't quite work because I have no scar, insurance bill, "hangover" from the anesthesia, recuperation period, or any other lasting affects to ensure I had the abduction. Additionally, (well I won't go there...) :alien:

I understand what you mean by not being conscious of an event nullifying the experiece of the event. However, the experience may have adjuctant aspects about which one can experience thus making the experience a bona fide, well, experience.

SteveGrenard

2nd May 2006, 01:14 PM

Because you are not aware of an experience = it didn't happen.

I think not.

CFLarsen

2nd May 2006, 02:11 PM

Yes and no.
The telling, the knowing, and the reacting to the event is the experience Randi had concerning an NDE, and if I had this happen to me (really happen to me) I would consider it to be a part of my experiential life.

The alien thing doesn't quite work because I have no scar, insurance bill, "hangover" from the anesthesia, recuperation period, or any other lasting affects to ensure I had the abduction. Additionally, (well I won't go there...) :alien:

I understand what you mean by not being conscious of an event nullifying the experiece of the event. However, the experience may have adjuctant aspects about which one can experience thus making the experience a bona fide, well, experience.

So, if I can present a scar on your body which you can't remember the cause of, and told you that this thingie (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00066D4S8.01-ACO79F85RRNE2._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg) was extracted from your rectum, you would believe that you had been abducted by aliens?

Because you are not aware of an experience = it didn't happen.

I think not.

Nobody is saying that. The question is: How do you find out if something happened to you?

ruach1

2nd May 2006, 02:22 PM

CFLarsen;1613207]So, if I can present a scar on your body which you can't remember the cause of, and told you that this thingie (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00066D4S8.01-ACO79F85RRNE2._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg) was extracted from your rectum, you would believe that you had been abducted by aliens?
No

:vulcan:

ruach1

2nd May 2006, 02:23 PM

No

:vulcan:

(And keep that thingie away from me)

SteveGrenard

2nd May 2006, 02:24 PM

Nobody is saying that. The question is: How do you find out if something happened to you?

Try asking.

Waking up with a sore throat in the ICU.

Patient: Wha' happened?

Doctor: You had a cardiac arrest, we did CPR and brought you back and then placed a tube in your throat and hooked you to a ventilator until you came around.

CFLarsen

2nd May 2006, 02:40 PM

Try asking.

Waking up with a sore throat in the ICU.

Patient: Wha' happened?

Doctor: You had a cardiac arrest, we did CPR and brought you back and then placed a tube in your throat and hooked you to a ventilator until you came around.

And if the doctor lies, did it really happen?

How do we know the doctor didn't lie?

Admiral

2nd May 2006, 02:41 PM

CFLarsen

2nd May 2006, 02:42 PM

No

:vulcan:
Why not?

CFLarsen

2nd May 2006, 02:44 PM

I'd believe that I got drunk at the wrong party last night.
Why?

There are "witnesses" who will swear that you were abducted.

Why disbelieve them?

(Yes, I am playing the devil's advocate here)

SteveGrenard

2nd May 2006, 03:31 PM

And if the doctor lies, did it really happen?

How do we know the doctor didn't lie?

Because you wake up in a two thousand dollar+ a day bed in the ICU surrounded with nurses and doctors and tubes sticking in you. Because you ask for a newspaper and find out its Tuesday while the last day you remember was Saturday. Because the doctor has no reason to lie to you but you can confirm what he said anyway with members of your family, and friends who visited while you were unconscious and other staff members who also have no reason to lie to you. You then are taken into the cardiac cath suite, as Randi was, where usually under local or no anesthetic (while you are fully alert and oriented) a radiopaque tube is thread into the femoral artery in the groin while an interventional cardiologist watches it on something that looks like a TV set but is an x-ray image intensifier. If you're lucky and its set high enough up at the right angle, you can see it too.Then the doctor orders his assistant to squirt some dye into the catheter and you and he can see how far it goes once the bolus of dye reaches the heart. If you missed the live action you can ask them to make you a CD which you can run on any PC. Following the procedure you are advised of major blockages, two according to Randi in his case ..., I am speculating here, probably one in the left main and the other in left anterior descending coronary artery and that you need a CABG or coronary artery bypass graft operation to bypass these blockages and restore circulation to the heart muscle served by these two important coronary vessels.

If after all that you think you don't know if Randi's doctor lied to him, try and get some help, you're obsessing too much.

Admiral

2nd May 2006, 03:31 PM

Why?

There are "witnesses" who will swear that you were abducted.

Why disbelieve them?

(Yes, I am playing the devil's advocate here)

Occam's Razor.

If it is more likely that all the witnesses are lying or confused than that I was abducted by aliens, I won't believe that I was abducted by aliens.

Once enough credible people tell me I was abducted by aliens that it is more likely that I was abducted than that this many people are all mistaken or lying, than I would be willing to believe it.

Of course, I still have no proof either way, although the hangover and funny stuff written all over me might be good evidence that it wasn't aliens...

Roadtoad

2nd May 2006, 03:42 PM

Hmm. I might buy into the idea of Randi having had an NDE if he's show us a rock he'd gotten from Jesus.

(With apologies to Rob Lancaster...)

Roadtoad

2nd May 2006, 03:43 PM

Thanks a lot for that image....

That's because we love you, Claus. :D

Pyrrho

2nd May 2006, 04:39 PM

Because you wake up in a two thousand dollar+ a day bed in the ICU surrounded with nurses and doctors and tubes sticking in you. Because you ask for a newspaper and find out its Tuesday while the last day you remember was Saturday. Because the doctor has no reason to lie to you but you can confirm what he said anyway with members of your family, and friends who visited while you were unconscious and other staff members who also have no reason to lie to you. You then are taken into the cardiac cath suite, as Randi was, where usually under local or no anesthetic (while you are fully alert and oriented) a radiopaque tube is thread into the femoral artery in the groin while an interventional cardiologist watches it on something that looks like a TV set but is an x-ray image intensifier. If you're lucky and its set high enough up at the right angle, you can see it too.Then the doctor orders his assistant to squirt some dye into the catheter and you and he can see how far it goes once the bolus of dye reaches the heart. If you missed the live action you can ask them to make you a CD which you can run on any PC. Following the procedure you are advised of major blockages, two according to Randi in his case ..., I am speculating here, probably one in the left main and the other in left anterior descending coronary artery and that you need a CABG or coronary artery bypass graft operation to bypass these blockages and restore circulation to the heart muscle served by these two important coronary vessels.

If after all that you think you don't know if Randi's doctor lied to him, try and get some help, you're obsessing too much.
If that isn't convincing, the bills might be.

I'll assume that coronary bypass surgery isn't "keyhole" surgery yet, which would mean some rather convincing stitching down one's chest--not something a doctor would do for light relief, even on a slow day at the office.

SteveGrenard

2nd May 2006, 05:18 PM

If that isn't convincing, the bills might be.

I'll assume that coronary bypass surgery isn't "keyhole" surgery yet, which would mean some rather convincing stitching down one's chest--not something a doctor would do for light relief, even on a slow day at the office.

Actually there are minimally invasive procedures for CABG surgery but that would depend where the blockages are and how many of them are involved. See for example:

http://www.hsforum.com/stories/storyReader$1418

Search minimally invasive CABG or port CABG.

The best thing is that there are now stabilizing tools available to allow the surgeon to do a CABG (pronounced "cabbage") off pump on a beating heart which is a big advantage for the patient .... not having to be placed on a heart/lung machine. The largest field and most convenient field for the surgeon to work on does involve "cracking" the sternum and spreading the ribs apart with the above described wire stitching down the center of the chest for closure. Yes, none of this would be something a doctor would do for fun nor would he do it to glom another patient and fee. There are so many people lined for these procedures, lying about it is hardly worth a thought much less the effort. And if the surgeon is that slow you would be better off with a busier surgeon and team anyway. Practice makes perfect. I don't know if Randi had a minimally invasive procedure or the median sternotomy. Although more grotesque appearing than a few holes in your chest, believe it or not, the sternotomy is less painful post-operatively.

If you still think your doctor(s) is/are lying, with a copy of the CD of your cardiac cath procedure in hand you can get a second, even a third opinion if you wanted to.

skepticdoc

2nd May 2006, 05:30 PM

ruach1

2nd May 2006, 05:36 PM

Please, stop this idiocy!
Randi never died, NOBODY has EVER been resuscitated after being declared dead.

Death, like birth is an irreversible one way passage.

You don't know where you came from, and you don't know where you are going.
Hey, who let in the wet blanket?

Just kidding. :rolleyes: This is actually an interesting post. On the one hand, it seems skepticy with an oblique denial of the Resurrection in the first paragraph. But in the last one, skepticdoc mysteriously leaves the issue (whatever issue this may be) open to mystery. I like it! :)

SteveGrenard

2nd May 2006, 05:37 PM

Please, stop this idiocy!

Randi never died, NOBODY has EVER been resuscitated after being declared dead.

Death, like birth is an irreversible one way passage.

You don't know where you came from, and you don't know where you are going.

Randi said he died. Semantics. His heart died. In effect he had a cardiac arrest and was resuscitated. I am sorry but people are brought back from cardiac arrest ALL the time. I don't believe he said or anybody said he
was "declared dead." I agree, if he was, he would not de facto been the object of any CPR.

joller

2nd May 2006, 05:59 PM

So, Randi denies that he had an NDE?

Evasion noted.

(Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm illustrating a logical fallacy. Five points to whomever correctly identifies the fallacy)

I say in your context it's a presupposition, "the fallacy of many questions" (in your context as it was already pointed out that semantically it's OK) since it assumes an at least dubious claim that NDEs are a fact (or paranormal NDEs, as was pointed out, to avoid equivocation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions

joller

2nd May 2006, 06:02 PM

You don't know where you came from, and you don't know where you are going.
I thought we know quite well where we come from, and we have no evidence to suggest we're going anywhere after we die.

skepticdoc

2nd May 2006, 06:04 PM

Randi said he died. Semantics. His heart died. In effect he had a cardiac arrest and was resuscitated. I am sorry but people are brought back from cardiac arrest ALL the time. I don't believe he said or anybody said he
was "declared dead." I agree, if he was, he would not de facto been the object of any CPR.

Go back to post #21

His heart did not die, death is irreversible at the cellular, organ, system or organism level. Death is an absolute, a term not to be taken lightly.

skepticdoc

2nd May 2006, 06:10 PM

I thought we know quite well where we come from, and we have no evidence to suggest we're going anywhere after we die.

Where do we come from? egg and sperm, which came from? please give me the location of the Alpha, I know its location as well as I know the Omega's!

Pyrrho

2nd May 2006, 06:17 PM

I say in your context it's a presupposition, "the fallacy of many questions" (in your context as it was already pointed out that semantically it's OK) since it assumes an at least dubious claim that NDEs are a fact (or paranormal NDEs, as was pointed out, to avoid equivocation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions
We have a winner...five points to joller, redeemable for something somewhere I suppose...

joller

2nd May 2006, 06:23 PM

I'm sorry, I don't fully understand your point of view.
Where do we come from? egg and sperm, which came from?
testicles and ovaries?
EDIT: Is that a test?

please give me the location of the Alpha, I know its location as well as I know the Omega's!
Well I don't know what you're talking about, but I'll take a wild guess. Do you refer to the origins and a possibility of human consciousness surviving the death of human brain?

SteveGrenard

2nd May 2006, 06:25 PM

Go back to post #21

His heart did not die, death is irreversible at the cellular, organ, system or organism level. Death is an absolute, a term not to be taken lightly.

So you would disagree with Randi's assesment of his condition which is that he died. I can understand that. But it is a common expression, especially by patients who have survived a cardiac arrest, to think, say, or feel they died and were resuscitated. I would think by your strict adherence to the terminology that anyone who has had a cardiac arrest which they survived through CPR were "near death" and not dead.
The term "near" in this case translating to X distance measured in minutes, beyond which a person if not receiving CPR, with a heart in standstill, conked out, stopped, died as a motor but capable of being re-started by a jump or medication, would be dead, not near dead. Would that be a fair assesment?

If so then Randi did not die ... well obviously he didn't, but was in fact
near death and thus had a near death experience whether he knew or recognized it or not.

skepticdoc

2nd May 2006, 06:30 PM

I'm sorry, I don't fully understand your point of view.

testicles and ovaries?
EDIT: Is that a test?

Well I don't know what you're talking about, but I'll take a wild guess. Do you refer to the origins and a possibility of human consciousness surviving the death of human brain?

I don't know where consciousness comes from, or when it starts.

"I thought we know quite well where we come from.." Where do we come from?

I am not sure what happens after death, maybe nothing, and I am not eager to find out any time soon!

joller

2nd May 2006, 06:40 PM

"I thought we know quite well where we come from.." Where do we come from?

OK.
Now you are a person who pays a lot of attention to the use of correct non ambiguous terminology.
What do you actually mean by "we" in this context?
I specifically refer to this quote
You don't know where you came from, and you don't know where you are going.
And by the Alpha and Omega in this qoute:
please give me the location of the Alpha, I know its location as well as I know the Omega's!

skepticdoc

2nd May 2006, 08:42 PM

I thought we know quite well where we come from, and we have no evidence to suggest we're going anywhere after we die.

I should have quoted your original post.

What do you mean by we ( Kimo sabe? )?

What is this origin you seem to know quite well?

I have to credit the Skeptic Forum; there was a discussion about what to say when believers ask where do we go when we die? Somebody said something along the line of: we go back to where we came from.

I don't know where I came from, and neither do I know where I am going. I wish there was something else to be able to wonder and appreciate the wonders of the Universe (pantheism?), but I don't have any concrete evidence either way.

I would like to consider myself a true agnostic.

joller

2nd May 2006, 09:09 PM

I'm lost in all that stuff now. You quote my post which was in reply to your post I just quoted, so i just wanted to know what you were referring to in your original post.
When I posted that reply, later followed by 'testicles and ovaries' I was referring to how we develop from egg and sperm. You asked where it came from, I said testicles and ovaries.
I take it you know how testicles and ovaries produce sperm and eggs - so this is where I'm lost.
What is this origin you seem to know quite well?
That was the origin I was refering to.
You obviously refered to something else, which is why I asked.

I don't know where I came from, and neither do I know where I am going. I wish there was something else to be able to wonder and appreciate the wonders of the Universe (pantheism?), but I don't have any concrete evidence either way.

I would like to consider myself a true agnostic.
I have no idea what this bit is doing in here, so I'll just treat the whole conversation as miscommunication, and leave it at that.

I thought we know quite well where we come from,
Sperm and eggs, testicles and ovaries etc. What else is there to know?

CFLarsen

3rd May 2006, 12:30 AM

Because you wake up in a two thousand dollar+ a day bed in the ICU surrounded with nurses and doctors and tubes sticking in you. Because you ask for a newspaper and find out its Tuesday while the last day you remember was Saturday. Because the doctor has no reason to lie to you but you can confirm what he said anyway with members of your family, and friends who visited while you were unconscious and other staff members who also have no reason to lie to you. You then are taken into the cardiac cath suite, as Randi was, where usually under local or no anesthetic (while you are fully alert and oriented) a radiopaque tube is thread into the femoral artery in the groin while an interventional cardiologist watches it on something that looks like a TV set but is an x-ray image intensifier. If you're lucky and its set high enough up at the right angle, you can see it too.Then the doctor orders his assistant to squirt some dye into the catheter and you and he can see how far it goes once the bolus of dye reaches the heart. If you missed the live action you can ask them to make you a CD which you can run on any PC. Following the procedure you are advised of major blockages, two according to Randi in his case ..., I am speculating here, probably one in the left main and the other in left anterior descending coronary artery and that you need a CABG or coronary artery bypass graft operation to bypass these blockages and restore circulation to the heart muscle served by these two important coronary vessels.

If after all that you think you don't know if Randi's doctor lied to him, try and get some help, you're obsessing too much.

Steve, what part of "Yes, I am playing the devil's advocate here" didn't you get?

CFLarsen

3rd May 2006, 12:33 AM

If so then Randi did not die ... well obviously he didn't, but was in fact near death and thus had a near death experience whether he knew or recognized it or not.

No, he did not have a near death experience. He was told later that he - technically - died. But he did not have an NDE.

Camillus

3rd May 2006, 02:43 AM

Please, stop this idiocy!

Randi never died, NOBODY has EVER been resuscitated after being declared dead.

Death, like birth is an irreversible one way passage.

You don't know where you came from, and you don't know where you are going.

I am not sure that I agree. There are (the last time I checked) 25 reports of someone being declared dead following an apparently unsuccessful resuscitation and subsequently having a spontaneous return of circulation. In some of those cases additional resuscitation was then given. In 8 reports patients survived being declared dead and subsequently went home with their brains intact.

It is likely that this "Lazarus Phenomenon" is more common than reported. I have certainly encountered it, and although I have not seen someone survive to discharge I know colleagues who have.

Roadtoad

3rd May 2006, 03:37 AM

"I thought we know quite well where we come from.." Where do we come from?

Well, I came from Yuba City, CA. Once voted "The Worst City in the USA."

skepticdoc

3rd May 2006, 02:17 PM

I am not sure that I agree. There are (the last time I checked) 25 reports of someone being declared dead following an apparently unsuccessful resuscitation and subsequently having a spontaneous return of circulation. In some of those cases additional resuscitation was then given. In 8 reports patients survived being declared dead and subsequently went home with their brains intact.

It is likely that this "Lazarus Phenomenon" is more common than reported. I have certainly encountered it, and although I have not seen someone survive to discharge I know colleagues who have.

The problem is the lack of formal protocols in the communiites.

Just because a "Doctor" declared a patient dead, it may not be a correct diagnosis. I trained in the University of Pittsburgh several years ago, and they always conducted their own assessment on the "organ donor", there were cases where the person was not "brain dead" and subsequently was resuscitated and even left the hospital.

http://www.organdonor.gov/acotrecs3.html

http://www.uoflhealthcare.com/pdffiles/ethicsForms/DeathBrainDeath.pdf

There are NO cases of reversal of "brain death" when the strict protocol is followed, do you have any specific references?

Pyrrho

3rd May 2006, 03:34 PM

No, he did not have a near death experience. He was told later that he - technically - died. But he did not have an NDE.
Ayup. A "close brush with death", as in nearly having died, is not what most people associate with the term "Near Death Experience", although "Near Death Experience is semantically correct as a description. Indeed, the term "Near Death Experience" lacks proper qualifiers. Something like "Near Death Auditory/Visual Experience" would be better.

SteveGrenard

3rd May 2006, 04:19 PM

Ayup. A "close brush with death", as in nearly having died, is not what most people associate with the term "Near Death Experience", although "Near Death Experience is semantically correct as a description. Indeed, the term "Near Death Experience" lacks proper qualifiers. Something like "Near Death Auditory/Visual Experience" would be better.

By way of comparison that this may be more than a semantically correct term consider the term "near-drowning" ..... although a "nearly died
experience" may solve the problem also.

CFLarsen

3rd May 2006, 11:48 PM

Well, I came from Yuba City, CA. Once voted "The Worst City in the USA."

By whom? The people who lived there? ;)

Ayup. A "close brush with death", as in nearly having died, is not what most people associate with the term "Near Death Experience", although "Near Death Experience is semantically correct as a description. Indeed, the term "Near Death Experience" lacks proper qualifiers. Something like "Near Death Auditory/Visual Experience" would be better.

I think we will see a myth form in the World of Paranormal Believers.

The myth that "James Randi, arch-skeptic and debunker of the paranormal, has had an NDE himself!"

You read it here first.

Camillus

4th May 2006, 04:36 AM

The problem is the lack of formal protocols in the communiites.

Just because a "Doctor" declared a patient dead, it may not be a correct diagnosis. I trained in the University of Pittsburgh several years ago, and they always conducted their own assessment on the "organ donor", there were cases where the person was not "brain dead" and subsequently was resuscitated and even left the hospital.

http://www.organdonor.gov/acotrecs3.html

http://www.uoflhealthcare.com/pdffiles/ethicsForms/DeathBrainDeath.pdf

There are NO cases of reversal of "brain death" when the strict protocol is followed, do you have any specific references?

With regard to the "Lazarus phenomenon" the first case was reported in 1982 (Linko et al, Recovery after discontinued cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Lancet 1982;1:106 –7). The last one for which I have a reference to hand in from 2001 (Walker et al, The Lazarus phenomenon following recreational drug use, Emerg Med J, 2001;18:74-75), although I am sure that a search would turn up more recent reports.

Another one from 2001 (Ben-David et al, Survival After Failed Intraoperative Resuscitation: A Case of “Lazarus Syndrome” Anesth Analg 2001;92:690–2) is interesting because it is so dramatic and the room for claiming “mistaken diagnosis” is so small.

The report describes the case of a 66-year old man with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) who arrested on the table during its repair. His initial rhythm was pulseless ventricular tachycardia deteriorating to ventricular fibrillation and then asystole. He was resuscitated for 17 minutes during which he received 9 360 J countershocks, 5 mg of adrenaline (epinephrine), 4 mg atropine, 2 g calcium chloride, 400 mg of lidocaine, 2 g magnesium sulphate and 150 mEq sodium bicarbonate. At the end of this time his ECG (EKG) showed asystole and on palpation by the surgeon his proximal aorta was flaccid and pulseless. The decision to stop resuscitation was made, and, in the words of the authors, “The patient was pronounced dead at 0617.”

All IV lines and monitoring were removed, the tracheal tube was left in place but ventilation was discontinued. The surgeon decided to use the opportunity to do some teaching before closing up and ten minutes later he felt a pulse in the aorta above the level of the aortic cross-clamp. The ECG was reconnected and showed sinus rhythm, the systolic BP was 90 mmHg. The decision was made to continue with the operation and the man’s AAA was repaired. He then went to the intensive care unit and was discharged from hospital, neurologically intact, 13 days later. Five weeks later he had returned to his pre-op life style.

I am not sure why you felt the need to mention brain death and organ donation. I do not think anyone was suggesting that Randi was brain dead (well no one on our side of the Great Woo Divide anyway). The diagnosis of death in beating heart cadavers is a distinct process from the declaration of death in other circumstances. Bringing brain death into the discussion simply muddies the waters, but I would agree, no one has recovered from a correct diagnosis of brain death.

skepticdoc

4th May 2006, 04:48 PM

digithead

5th May 2006, 12:00 AM

A minor sidebar related to the Amazing's "death". I worked on a study my first go-round in grad school where we were trying to model/predict complications like stroke, kidney failure, or death that occur during cardiac surgery based on a set of patient characteristics such as age, previous health problems, etc...

We spent the better part of an afternoon bantering around names like a "nearness to death coefficient" or "white light intensity", finally settling on the boring but descriptive "complications outcome measure". I was unaware of the term "near death experience" at the time...

I don't have a link for it as we only presented it at a student research forum but A.R.'s problem reminded me of that time...

Anyhow, I'm glad he's doing better. I'm also certain that some of the techniques that the cardiac surgeons/cardiologists at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center who I worked with helped to keep him alive...

Camillus

5th May 2006, 02:40 AM

Can a woman be a little bit pregnant?

Either she is or she is not.
0 or 1
on or off
You are either dead or alive (at least from the brain perspective).

Allowing a poorly defined condition in the discussion allows misconceptions and only feeds Woo!

There is no Lazarus, there was no resurrection, nobody has come back after being declared brain dead ( I think you agree with me on this last point! )

In that case in particular, the brain death protocols would not have applied because the patient had probably received barbiturates, and the resuscitation probably triggered some brain sparing "diving" reflex, not to mention the benefits of hypothermia. I recall some phrase, nobody is dead until they are warm AND "dead".

I am having trouble understanding the point that you are trying to make. Diagnosing death by using brain stem testing is a rare event used in only a specific subset of patients who are being maintained in an ICU. It is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

In normal practice the diagnosis of death is based on an absence of consciousness, breathing and circulation. The point I am making is that it is possible to fit all those criteria and to subsequently have a spontaneous return of circulation.

There is nothing miraculous about it and good physiological reasons for it to occur have been proposed. It is a rare event but it does happen and at least some of those people survive to return to normal life.

To return to your pregnancy analogy: a woman is either pregnant or she is not however her state can, and does, change from one to the other. The same is possible with death; one can go from alive to dead to alive again.

skepticdoc

5th May 2006, 04:32 AM

Where are the other cases?

My point is the finality of death, if you are dead, you cannot come back!

Embryos can be frozen, but they are not dead, they were suspended in liquid N2 after taking some steps to prevent cell rupture from ice crystals.

Once you have changed the spatial arrangements of the proteins, there is a point of no return, death.

Camillus

5th May 2006, 05:19 AM

I provided you with references to other cases. It should be easy for you to go and look them up, or to search on your preferred medical database for "Lazarus phenomenon".

A quick question for you: is a person who suffers a cardiac arrest and is successfully resuscitated alive or dead during the period that they are pulseless and apnoeic? How does their state during that time differ from somone who suffers a cardiac arrest and cannot be revived?

skepticdoc

5th May 2006, 10:57 AM

Skeptic Ginger

5th May 2006, 12:18 PM

Skepticdoc is making one of those impossible to argue with arguments. If you have a person who was declared dead revive, then the declaration was in error. That leaves no room to argue about what is or isn't "dead". Anything a patient recovers from, wasn't dead in the first place. I see no evidence contradicting this position. (Surprise S'doc. ;) )

Camillis' examples are fascinating. I had a patient, a young man, found on the bottom of a swimming pool after an unknown amount of time. He was resuscitated but had a "flat EEG" for 3 days, required mechanical ventilation but did have a cardiac rhythm. Then he "woke up". Brain function had returned rather quickly. He went home with some short term memory impairment of which I do not know the long term prognosis.

That was a long time ago. The effects of hypothermia on preservation of a brain with no oxygen supply are now well known. It is typically included in any definition of brain death. Skepticdoc's citation mentions the need to have a body temp of 90 before declaring brain death. I didn't see where they noted the need to wait longer for cases such as cold water drowning (or I missed where they addressed that) but I believe most definitions include such caveats.

So we have some people who experience something they believe to be what happens after death. But any modern definition of death excludes any condition a patient revived from. Heart function does not define life, since one can stop a heart and live. Brain function comes closer to defining life but one can shut down most of one's brain function and still live.

Where does that leave us? "Death" one "returns from" is merely a patient who met some clinical criteria that we have associated with no chance of returning from. And such criteria have exceptions as Camillis' examples provide.

I see no way to conclude the experience believed to be an NDE (by popular definition, not by the semantic arguments here) can be considered anything other than the result of live brain activity. Remember, most of these experiences, probably all of them, occur after cardiac arrest but not after brain death. The only way to provide evidence to the contrary would be to provide evidence that individual actually separated from the corporeal body. An unlikely event.

So when the patient with an NDE reads the hidden message placed out of view from anyone not near the ceiling looking down, and some form of "cheating" is ruled out, then and only then will there be any evidence an NDE is anything other than a form of dreaming or hallucinating however you want to define it.

Camillus

6th May 2006, 12:35 PM

I "googled" the term, the A&A article was prominent, I could not read the original article without paying the $15 access fee.

I found this link:
http://tomcoburnisabigfatjerk.blogspot.com/2005_02_27_tomcoburnisabigfatjerk_archive.html

Are you qouting references from Anesth. Analg., Vol. 92, Issue 3, 690-692, March 1, 2001 ?

I regret I cannot afford to get the original references that you are qouting, but from the titles, the cases happened either in the hospital or after recreational drug use.

The reference to the man in theatre is the one you mention. The other articles I found during a literature search. I am not aware of a case report of an out-of-hospital incident but at least one has occurred in an Emergency Department on a patient admitted in cardiac arrest.

I may be splitting hairs, nit-picking or taking semantics to an extreme, but anybody that "came back" was NEVER dead in the first place, they were cases of misdiagnosis. I will make a small donation (the article fee ) to a chuch of your choice, if I cannot find a logical explanation to any case of "lazarus syndrome" published in a peer reviewed medical journal!

I try not to ever be fanatic about anything, but I will take my stand: Death is irreversible, if we give any validity to "lazarus syndrome" cases, we are taking a step back from rational thought.

Just like many in this Forum state unequivocally "there is no god", I state death is irreversible.

I am not claiming that "Lazarus phenomenon" are mystical. I have no doubt that there are logical explainations for all the cases and a number of valid, physiological reasons have been proposed. In my opinion one of the most likely is that raised intrathoracic pressure prevents adequate perfusion of myocardium during CPR. When CPR stops intrathoracic presurre falls and passive filling of the coronary arteries occurs leading to a return of spontaneous output.

I think you are adopting an extreme position and you have not answered my question from an earlier post. To refresh you memory: is a person who suffers a cardiac arrest and is successfully resuscitated alive or dead during the period that they are pulseless and apnoeic? How does their state during that time differ from somone who suffers a cardiac arrest and cannot be revived?

I look forward to your answer.

Skeptic Ginger

6th May 2006, 01:27 PM

... In my opinion one of the most likely is that raised intrathoracic pressure prevents adequate perfusion of myocardium during CPR. When CPR stops intrathoracic presurre falls and passive filling of the coronary arteries occurs leading to a return of spontaneous output.Your hypothesis is a good one. It also happens that cardiac rhythm spontaneously returns on it's own in many cases. Who knows how the electrolyte imbalances such as severe acidosis corrected spontaneously though. The cardiac cell membrane potential would have been suppressed by the acidosis. Still, the case occurred.

I think you are adopting an extreme position and you have not answered my question from an earlier post. To refresh you memory: is a person who suffers a cardiac arrest and is successfully resuscitated alive or dead during the period that they are pulseless and apnoeic? How does their state during that time differ from somone who suffers a cardiac arrest and cannot be revived?

I look forward to your answer.Hopefully skepticdoc will enlighten us with his [not sure what adjective to put here] view.

As for mine, to further elaborate or repeat what I said above, all our definitions of death are merely arbitrary human definitions. Being pulseless and apneic doesn't define death at all any more. One has to be pulseless and apneic and not revivable. But even if it were defined as death, it's still just because someone says so, not because there is some absolute definition.

The only absolute definition would be when the last cell dies.

Pulseless and apneic merely equates to no blood flow with oxygen replacement to the brain and no blood flow with CO2 and other waste products of metabolism away from the brain.

Hypothermia can shut down the majority of neural activity in the brain as well without stopping blood flow. And I would imagine maybe some chemicals as well though I don't know the specifics of the brain activity under those conditions.

The definition of death when one is evaluating the significance of an NDE is the soul leaving the body. If one believes the brain is the source of self then no matter what the brain activity when it is stopped temporarily, the person isn't dead. Neural activity may be ceased, but the brain is still alive, as evidenced by the fact neural activity is restored.

If one believes in a soul or some other version of life after death, then death is defined as when that soul leaves the body. So arguing over what is or isn't death doesn't answer anything by itself. Providing evidence of a soul outside of the body is the only thing that provides evidence of life after death.

NDEs supposedly involve leaving one's body. Whether you go to the light, hell or just float over yourself in the room, you are supposedly out of your body. So who cares if you are pulseless or apneic. What matters is are you able to exist in some form without your brain and body?

skepticdoc

6th May 2006, 07:32 PM

I apologize for not offering a more direct answer earlier.

is a person who suffers a cardiac arrest and is successfully resuscitated alive or dead during the period that they are pulseless and apnoeic? How does their state during that time differ from somone who suffers a cardiac arrest and cannot be revived?

There is a period that cannot be quantified precisely, for obvious reasons, that the brain can tolerate no perfusion, the estimates are between 3-8 minutes.

During that period the brain is not dead and the person can be "resuscitated". After that period, the brain dies, and even if you connect a heart-lung machine, the brain will not come back because it died. I believe it is prudent to concentrate on the brain since it is the organ that "is consciousness" or "harbors it" (whatever "it" may be).

If the brain has not reached the "no flow" state it is not dead, once you have reached the "no flow", and disruption of cellular processes/membranes the brain/nervous tissue is dead (irreversibly!).

I recognize that this is an oversimplification, there are various systems in the central nervous system that may have different anoxic tolerances, Mrs. Terry Schiavo in the USA had brainstem functions, was NOT brain dead but she was not either a functioning, conscious human being, only some parts of the brain had died.

If Neuroscientists ever identify a precise structure or neural system that is responsible for "consciousness and personality" the definition of "brain death" can be refined. The bedside brain death protocols address the measure of brainstem function because it is clinically measurable, brain perfusion is an also accepted test, if a nuclear perfusion scan, or angiogram do not show flow to the brain, the person is also brain dead.

Paulhoff

9th May 2006, 08:22 AM

That brings up the question, did he have any "near death experiences"?

No, he didn't talk about having any at all at the Monthly meeting, last month.

Paul

:) :) :)

themyst

12th May 2006, 04:26 AM

So, if I can present a scar on your body which you can't remember the cause of, and told you that this thingie (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00066D4S8.01-ACO79F85RRNE2._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg) was extracted from your rectum, you would believe that you had been abducted by aliens?

I always wondered what a thingie was.

NOBODY has EVER been resuscitated after being declared dead.

I have seen a few comics who have died on stage. :-)

----------------------

Ok, jokes aside, this is a very interesting question but I think that unless there is a very clear definition of what death is/when is is, in 'the books', we are going to argue this forever.

The theories of when someone is dead could end up on the same sidewalk as the pro-lifers who try and prove when someone is first 'alive'.

Even using the idea that someone is only dead when the last cell fails will not work in reality because then the emergency personal will have to continue to try and resuscitate someone until it can be proved that all cells have failed.