Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I should. When links to false science or, in this case, false interpretation of science..... are dumped without qualification into a thread like this........ the people who know better, who are trained better, or who understand the subject better...... should very much "make an issue" of it.
.
Other then the title of their paper nothing they said about Parnia's experiment is in error. Your simply making an issue out of nothing.
Quote:
No I am not. I am telling you what his errors were. I am telling you not to take ANYONES word for it. I am giving you the facts, and the ability to go verify those facts yourself.
I have pointed to not one, but TWO statements from him which are simply false. They are entirely erroneous and misleading statements. You do not have to take anyone's word for it. You have Parnias statements. You have my correction of them. So YOU now have the tools to go and verify what I am saying.
In other words you disagree with Parnia statements; instead you believe some guy on a youtube video who support organ donation, who are the ones who push for a brain dead definition. Hmmm can't be because they have an ulterior motive.
But to be fair I looked into it and both term are still used today.
.......... the main crux of my point is NOT with Parnia's errors. In general I have no issue with the study you linked to. The main problem lies in YOUR false interpretation (caused by a poorly written news paper article it seems) of what the Study actually claims and shows. There is nothing in the Study that suggests life after death. At all. If you think otherwise then by all means show how and why.
Again all I did was post a link, I said nothing about life after death.
Quote:
As I said: There is a reason people like yourself quote news paper articles and not the original study.
Because that is where I first read it and it was on point to the discussion.
Does the original study say anything different then the article other then the title of the article, that there is awareness after death. NO
Quote:
I am not sure how outright lying is going to help your case here at all? But just before posting the link you wrote "First hint of 'life after death' in biggest ever scientific study". Then in a subsequent post only 1 minute later you linked to an article of the same title.
Huh your reading comprehension skills are showing. Take a look at those two posts again. I tried the link it did not work so I tried it again.
Quote:
So you have come into a thread SPECIFICALLY about consciousness surviving death, posted a claim SPECIFICALLY referring to "life after death", and now you are back peddaling it because you can not support it in any way. This is not an honest move. Nor is it an honest move to paint this as "my word against parnia's" because:
As you said the thread is about consciousness surviving after death and the article shows exactly that. Here is a couple of the statements
Southampton University scientists have found evidence that awareness continue for at least several minutes after clinical death which was previously thought impossible.
The evidence thus far suggests that in the first few minutes after death, consciousness is not annihilated
Thus I was on point. You simply derailed it because of the title the paper put to it.
Quote:
a) I have directly shown you how and why parnia's quoted statements are false but also
No Parnias statement are not wrong as I showed in the link above. Both terms are still in use today.
Quote:
b) I have not questioned anything about the actual study itself, the people I am calling out as "wrong" here are you and the news paper for falsely spinning this study to make out it is claiming something it is not.
If you can not own your link, then move on. But that places no onus on me to not point out the errors in it
No what you have an issue with is the title the paper put on Parnias experiment and that is the only issue you have unless you are still going to insist Parnia is still wrong about his statements.
Sorry-I came in halfway through. If you weren't arguing a case for a continuance of life after death, how does your link relate to topic?
Also, I believe that ToS has something to say about posting links with no explanation.
p.s
in fact I was there at the start and your #15 posted "First hint of 'life after death' in biggest ever scientific study". It was shown that that report was overdrawn whether just to have an eye - catching article or through an Agenda. And, didn't you argue that it was a conclusion fairly based on the original study?
In any case, whether you agree with it or not, isn't really the issue, is it?
it has nothing to do with life after death. the thread is about awareness after death and that is what the evidence Parnia gave shows. I can't help it that the paper put the title to it that they did, I read the article and it was on point to the discussion. Noz is simply making an issue out of the title the paper put to it.
Other then the title of their paper nothing they said about Parnia's experiment is in error. Your simply making an issue out of nothing.
I am making an issue out of you AND the news paper putting this forward as if it is evidence for life after death when it is not. You specifically posted "First hint of 'life after death' in biggest ever scientific study" on a thread specifically about Consciousness continuing after death.
Do you therefore conceed the point? That this link, this study, and this article are not in any way evidence of life after death?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
In other words you disagree with Parnia statements; instead you believe some guy on a youtube video who support organ donation
Do not make the VAST error of assuming that because I post a single link to back up what I say, that it is the ONLY source for what I say. I specifically posted that link not because I believe him, but because it was a clear and concise explanation of the issue that can be readily accessible to an obvious lay man such as yourself.
I disagree with Parnias 2 statements because they are out right wrong statements, and if you want I can provide FURTHER links and citations to this effect. I do not disagree with him because some randomer on you tube said so. That's your MO, not mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
But to be fair I looked into it and both term are still used today.
Did someone suggest otherwise? I think once again you have mis-understood what is being said to you. Whether because you genuinely do not understand, or you are willfully faking it, I can only guess.
NO ONE here is saying both terms are not still in use. What was said is that BOTH terms are in use and people very often misunderstand them. They think "clinically dead" and "dead" are the same thing and that when you are "clinicallly dead" the brain must be shut down entirely in all ways.
The criteria for "calling" clinical death has been changed away from the heart in recent years. This was done because we now know..... unlike Parnia who appears not to know.......... that heart death and brain death are NOT the same thing.
But "clinical death" when measured by machines monitoring the brain do not say that ALL activity in the brain must be gone. Just the activity that is measured by the machine.
An analogy here is to imagine I give you a machine that measures the color red. Imagine you go into a room and the machine measures no red. Would you come out of the room and say "there is no red in there" or would you say "there is no color in there"? Clearly you would say the former not the latter.
The same is true of the machines that measure brain activity. They do not measure ALL activity of ALL types. They instead measure one or two types. And just because our machine is no longer registering activity we can not automatically say "The brain is entirely dead and doing nothing".
Which is one of the useful things studies like Parnias DOES teach us. It shows us that the brain has other methods of effecting awareness of it's surroundings that are not predicated on the activity we used to measure for. And this is interesting and useful stuff to know!
But we already knew this kind of thing already. "Blind Sight" for example showed us that people we have diagnosed as entirely blind, can still see some things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Again all I did was post a link, I said nothing about life after death.
Again, what you did was post a claim about a study evidencing life after death ON a thread discussing life after death. Forgive me if I do not buy into your obvious back pedaling now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Huh your reading comprehension skills are showing.
No idea what you think you mean here. What I wrote is entirely accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
As you said the thread is about consciousness surviving after death and the article shows exactly that.
Except it shows no such thing. There is NOTHING in the article AT ALL, or the study upon which it is based, that shows any evidence at all for consciousness surviving after death. So it does not show "exactly that". It does not show that AT ALL even.
It shows some level of awareness is possible after doctors call "Clinical death" which is an ENTIRELY different thing. Stop conflating the two to cover your back pedaling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
No Parnias statement are not wrong as I showed in the link above. Both terms are still in use today.
I never said both terms are not still in use today. DO try to keep up would you? Both of Parnias statements are entirely wrong. And their being wrong has NOTHING to do with a claim (that no one here made) about the terms not being used today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
No what you have an issue with is the title the paper put on Parnias experiment and that is the only issue you have unless you are still going to insist Parnia is still wrong about his statements.
I do, because he is. But I also insist that this article AND this study in no way evidence consciousness surviving after death. If you wish to concede that point then do so and move on, because I am happy to go around on the merry go round about it for as long as you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
it has nothing to do with life after death. the thread is about awareness after death and that is what the evidence Parnia gave shows.
No. It doesn't. It shows a brief continuation of awareness after CLINICAL death, not after death. Get your terms right.
I am making an issue out of you AND the news paper putting this forward as if it is evidence for life after death when it is not. You specifically posted "First hint of 'life after death' in biggest ever scientific study" on a thread specifically about Consciousness continuing after death.
Do you therefore conceed the point? That this link, this study, and this article are not in any way evidence of life after death?
Do not make the VAST error of assuming that because I post a single link to back up what I say, that it is the ONLY source for what I say. I specifically posted that link not because I believe him, but because it was a clear and concise explanation of the issue that can be readily accessible to an obvious lay man such as yourself.
I disagree with Parnias 2 statements because they are out right wrong statements, and if you want I can provide FURTHER links and citations to this effect. I do not disagree with him because some randomer on you tube said so. That's your MO, not mine.
Did someone suggest otherwise? I think once again you have mis-understood what is being said to you. Whether because you genuinely do not understand, or you are willfully faking it, I can only guess.
NO ONE here is saying both terms are not still in use. What was said is that BOTH terms are in use and people very often misunderstand them. They think "clinically dead" and "dead" are the same thing and that when you are "clinicallly dead" the brain must be shut down entirely in all ways.
The criteria for "calling" clinical death has been changed away from the heart in recent years. This was done because we now know..... unlike Parnia who appears not to know.......... that heart death and brain death are NOT the same thing.
But "clinical death" when measured by machines monitoring the brain do not say that ALL activity in the brain must be gone. Just the activity that is measured by the machine.
An analogy here is to imagine I give you a machine that measures the color red. Imagine you go into a room and the machine measures no red. Would you come out of the room and say "there is no red in there" or would you say "there is no color in there"? Clearly you would say the former not the latter.
The same is true of the machines that measure brain activity. They do not measure ALL activity of ALL types. They instead measure one or two types. And just because our machine is no longer registering activity we can not automatically say "The brain is entirely dead and doing nothing".
Which is one of the useful things studies like Parnias DOES teach us. It shows us that the brain has other methods of effecting awareness of it's surroundings that are not predicated on the activity we used to measure for. And this is interesting and useful stuff to know!
But we already knew this kind of thing already. "Blind Sight" for example showed us that people we have diagnosed as entirely blind, can still see some things.
Again, what you did was post a claim about a study evidencing life after death ON a thread discussing life after death. Forgive me if I do not buy into your obvious back pedaling now.
No idea what you think you mean here. What I wrote is entirely accurate.
Except it shows no such thing. There is NOTHING in the article AT ALL, or the study upon which it is based, that shows any evidence at all for consciousness surviving after death. So it does not show "exactly that". It does not show that AT ALL even.
It shows some level of awareness is possible after doctors call "Clinical death" which is an ENTIRELY different thing. Stop conflating the two to cover your back pedaling.
I never said both terms are not still in use today. DO try to keep up would you? Both of Parnias statements are entirely wrong. And their being wrong has NOTHING to do with a claim (that no one here made) about the terms not being used today.
I do, because he is. But I also insist that this article AND this study in no way evidence consciousness surviving after death. If you wish to concede that point then do so and move on, because I am happy to go around on the merry go round about it for as long as you are.
No. It doesn't. It shows a brief continuation of awareness after CLINICAL death, not after death. Get your terms right.
Is it me who is being willfully ignorant or is it you.
Take a look at the 2 statements again.
Southampton University scientists have found evidence that awareness continue for at least several minutes after clinical death which was previously thought impossible.
The evidence thus far suggests that in the first few minutes after death, consciousness is not annihilated
Parnia was speaking of clinical death, just because he did not say clinical death when referring to death each time does not mean he is wrong as you say he is, it just means you misunderstood him.
Thus again your only argument is the title the paper put to Parnias work.
Quote:
I do, because he is. But I also insist that this article AND this study in no way evidence consciousness surviving after death. If you wish to concede that point then do so and move on, because I am happy to go around on the merry go round about it for as long as you are.
Is that not what I said at the beginning that you disagreed with the science.
it has nothing to do with life after death. the thread is about awareness after death and that is what the evidence Parnia gave shows. I can't help it that the paper put the title to it that they did, I read the article and it was on point to the discussion. Noz is simply making an issue out of the title the paper put to it.
Ok - a nit pick really, as the whole life after death idea was really about the individual awareness (plus memories,of course - awareness plus amnesia is not what is expected) after death, whether it has a solid body or not. I'm sure that Nozz is aware of the niceties of the terms and concepts. And that they really make no odds.
As clearly he does and they don't:
"You specifically posted "First hint of 'life after death' in biggest ever scientific study" on a thread specifically about Consciousness continuing after death."
Is it me who is being willfully ignorant or is it you.
I am going with you on that one. I have corrected numerous times your error between "death" and "clinical death" and you keep making the same mistakes over and over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Parnia was speaking of clinical death, just because he did not say clinical death when referring to death each time does not mean he is wrong as you say he is, it just means you misunderstood him.
Or he is not being consistent with his terms and is open to being misunderstood. Remember this is a person who openly WANTS people to believe in an after life, and metaphysical interpretations of OBE and NDE, despite his own studies showing ZERO evidence for any of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Thus again your only argument is the title the paper put to Parnias work.
My argument is not just with titles, but with anyone who presents this study as evidence for, or in a thread related to, the concept of an after life. Because the study is in no way evidence for that. At all. Even a little bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Is that not what I said at the beginning that you disagreed with the science.:
Nothing I said disagrees with science. In fact even the phrase "Disagree with science" is incoherent. The entire process of science is based on disagreement and scientists correcting the errors, or correcting for the biases, of other scientists.
Disagreement and correction and falsification is the heart of science, the exact opposite of disagreeing with scientists.
Is it me who is being willfully ignorant or is it you.
Take a look at the 2 statements again.
Southampton University scientists have found evidence that awareness continue for at least several minutes after clinical death which was previously thought impossible.
The evidence thus far suggests that in the first few minutes after death, consciousness is not annihilated
Parnia was speaking of clinical death, just because he did not say clinical death when referring to death each time does not mean he is wrong as you say he is, it just means you misunderstood him.
Thus again your only argument is the title the paper put to Parnias work.
Is that not what I said at the beginning that you disagreed with the science.
I don't get that at all. You seem to be agreeing with Nozz that the study is suggesting the remaining of consciousness/awareness after 'clinical death'. I believe that revivals after 'clinical death' have been known, indeed recounting experiences when 'clinically dead' is the origin of a lot of these questions.
And, if I get it right, this in no way means that the' awareness' is going to continue long after the brain and body has decomposed. That is in no way supported by the study, nor, as I recall, by Parnia. Thus Nozz agrees with Parnia, but not with the eternal life angle of the newspaper article.
If so, it if over to you to say whether you agree with the study, Parnia and Nozz. or with the newspaper story.
Ok - a nit pick really, as the whole life after death idea was really about the individual awareness (plus memories,of course - awareness plus amnesia is not what is expected) after death, whether it has a solid body or not. I'm sure that Nozz is aware of the niceties of the terms and concepts. And that they really make no odds.
As clearly he does and they don't:
"You specifically posted "First hint of 'life after death' in biggest ever scientific study" on a thread specifically about Consciousness continuing after death."
I don't have an issue with noz pointing out that the paper title was misleading, I simply cannot help it that that is first where I read of the study. But it is the study itself that I am pointing out not what the paper made of the study.
And after all noz posturing, in his last post he finally admitted what I said at the beginning which is he disagrees with the science.
I don't get that at all. You seem to be agreeing with Nozz that the study is suggesting the remaining of consciousness/awareness after 'clinical death'. I believe that revivals after 'clinical death' have been known, indeed recounting experiences when 'clinically dead' is the origin of a lot of these questions.
And, if I get it right, this in no way means that the' awareness' is going to continue long after the brain and body has decomposed. That is in no way supported by the study, nor, as I recall, by Parnia. Thus Nozz agrees with Parnia, but not with the eternal life angle of the newspaper article.
If so, it if over to you to say whether you agree with the study, Parnia and Nozz. or with the newspaper story.
it is the study trans I simply cannot help what other make of it. I don't mind noz pointing out that the paper was making something of the study that was not intended of the study itself.
I am going with you on that one. I have corrected numerous times your error between "death" and "clinical death" and you keep making the same mistakes over and over.
Or he is not being consistent with his terms and is open to being misunderstood. Remember this is a person who openly WANTS people to believe in an after life, and metaphysical interpretations of OBE and NDE, despite his own studies showing ZERO evidence for any of it.
My argument is not just with titles, but with anyone who presents this study as evidence for, or in a thread related to, the concept of an after life. Because the study is in no way evidence for that. At all. Even a little bit.
Nothing I said disagrees with science. In fact even the phrase "Disagree with science" is incoherent. The entire process of science is based on disagreement and scientists correcting the errors, or correcting for the biases, of other scientists.
Disagreement and correction and falsification is the heart of science, the exact opposite of disagreeing with scientists.
ok let me rephrase it then. You disagree with the results of Panias scientific study/findings, that awareness is still there after clinical death. And if you don't disagree then this has been nothing more then a misunderstanding.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
