Problems with this section; for Frank (Agnosticism)

by David Turell , Tuesday, November 24, 2009, 01:47 (5477 days ago) @ Frank Paris

"I have said in my last post to you that NDE's are not hallucinations. Believe me, with 40 years in medicine, I know one when I hear one."
> 
> Your appeal to personal authority is obviously unwarranted. Otherwise, one has to wonder why there are still so many skeptics. Probably because the skeptics would argue that your medical training has no bearing on the interpretation of the phenomena you are describing. Your religious beliefs are getting in the way and when you make statements like this you are not speaking out of medical knowledge but from the prejudices of your religious beliefs. Otherwise, all atheists would be whistling Dixie, wouldn't they? On the other hand, maybe your word just hasn't gotten around. You seem to believe that your interpretations are an open and shut case. In that case, you owe it to mankind to write a book.-I have with a whole chapter on the NDE phenomenon and other aspects of possible psychic activity. I have reviewed the literature written by other medical professionals. And the circumstances are so striking in hospice situations, a world-wide study has began to seriously look at this. Remember a majority of these NDE'rs have the same experienced. It is coherent, whereas hallucinations follow no pattern, are jumbled, flit from one thing to another, and basically make no sense. It is my turn to suggest that you read: find the book "Light and Death", 1998, by Dr. Michael Sabom, a cardiologist. Read just the one case of the lady with the basilar aneurysm. It is not an NDE, but will give you pause. Then find Lancet Vol:358,2039-45 December 15, 2001, and read the prospective study of 344 patients who were resuscitated during heart attack, senior author Pim van Lommel. peer reviewed and accepted in Lancet!-> One may indeed have witnessed a reality that legitimately gives reason to lose all fear of death, but presenting a legitimate theory about why you should now feel that way may be entirely beyond such facile and incoherent explanations as that there is consciousness belonging to that individual after death. The real explanation has got to be more sophisticated than that, because that simple explanation has just too many problems of incoherency associated with it, stemming primarily from the fact that consciousness is a transitory process, not a persistent substance.-It makes me wonder when patients have no EKG and the EEG is flat, how do patients know what is going on?