Dr. George Rodonaia' NDE

Ashles

Pith Artist
Ashles
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Messages
8,694
Location
The '80s
Does anyone know anything more about this guy ?

Apparently he was dead for three days and is mentioned in many places as the longest dead NDE experiencer.


Edited to fix link because the first moronic site had an apostrophe in the URL which meant it wouldn't work as a link here. Apostrophe in a URL, I mean really...
 
No, apparantly, he was not dead. Whatever death is, our present definition of being dead is a non-reversible condition.

Hans
 
Russia. Russia, again.

Why is it all these incredible claims seem to be coming from Russia these days, and they always seem to involve Russian scientists?
 
He died last October 12th. So I guess he really is the longest-dead NDE experiencer. He just hasn't come back to tell us about it yet.
 
MRC_Hans said:
No, apparantly, he was not dead. Whatever death is, our present definition of being dead is a non-reversible condition.

Hans
Click to expand...

No it isn't. It can't be since a materialist must admit that death is always in principle reversible. A 1000 years hence someone might build an android whose brain will function in such a manner that it will be you.
 
Interesting Ian said:
No it isn't. It can't be since a materialist must admit that death is always in principle reversible. A 1000 years hence someone might build an android whose brain will function in such a manner that it will be you.
Click to expand...
No.
 
Interesting Ian said:
No it isn't. It can't be since a materialist must admit that death is always in principle reversible. A 1000 years hence someone might build an android whose brain will function in such a manner that it will be you.
Click to expand...

What other people argue is based on what they say, not what you say they are supposed to. Pay attention instead.
 
But even if it somehow becomes possible some day to record or transfer the entire contents (memories, experiences, mental capabilities, etc) of a human brain into a machine or another human brain it would not prevent the original brain (tissue) from dying. When the tissue of a brain is oxygen starved for more than a few minutes chemical and electrical activity ceases and it begins to decompose. After 3 days in that state that person is not near death, they're dead.

If a person appeared to be dead for 3 days and then was 'alive' again I agree that person wasn't really dead. Somehow blood was still pumping and cells were still functioning.

The argument about potentially re-creating a person being the same as the person not dying is just semantics and has nothing to do with whether there is a non-corporeal 'mind' or support for NDE's.
 
Blondin said:
But even if it somehow becomes possible some day to record or transfer the entire contents (memories, experiences, mental capabilities, etc) of a human brain into a machine or another human brain it would not prevent the original brain (tissue) from dying. When the tissue of a brain is oxygen starved for more than a few minutes chemical and electrical activity ceases and it begins to decompose. After 3 days in that state that person is not near death, they're dead.

If a person appeared to be dead for 3 days and then was 'alive' again I agree that person wasn't really dead. Somehow blood was still pumping and cells were still functioning.

The argument about potentially re-creating a person being the same as the person not dying is just semantics and has nothing to do with whether there is a non-corporeal 'mind' or support for NDE's.
Click to expand...

Hans stated "our present definition of being dead is a non-reversible condition". Obviously the original brain tissue is not important because we're talking about a person. Our brain tissue gets replaced thoughout our lives, but we don't say we continually die all the time. Assuming materialism, it's what the brain does which constitutes our essence. If our neurons were replaced one by one by electronic chips which duplicate the function of each neuron, would you say that you had died after your entire brain had been replaced? Obviously not. But this means that Han's definition simply will not do since there is always the possibility of returning.

And the definition is not really a definition in anycase. It seems reasonsable to suppose this guy really died. But since he continued to have experiences, then this is incompatible with the hypothesis that brain generates consciousness.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Hans stated "our present definition of being dead is a non-reversible condition". Obviously the original brain tissue is not important because we're talking about a person. Our brain tissue gets replaced thoughout our lives, but we don't say we continually die all the time. Assuming materialism, it's what the brain does which constitutes our essence. If our neurons were replaced one by one by electronic chips which duplicate the function of each neuron, would you say that you had died after your entire brain had been replaced? Obviously not.
Click to expand...
This is not the same thing as the suggestion that you originally made:
A 1000 years hence someone might build an android whose brain will function in such a manner that it will be you.
Click to expand...
In the example you have just posted, where the brain is gradually replaced, death has not occurred; there is still continuity.
It seems reasonsable to suppose this guy really died. But since he continued to have experiences, then this is incompatible with the hypothesis that brain generates consciousness.
Click to expand...
A nice piece of circular reasoning. It is only incompatible with the hypothesis that the brain generates consciousness if we assume that the guy really died but continued to have experiences.
 
Well, Ian, Hans *did* say that it's our present definition of death. Someday, if regeneration of brain activity becomes possible, we might have to modify that definition.

But your statement "then this is incompatible with the hypothesis that brain generates consciousness"??? We don't know that he really died and then recovered. Even if we find out that this part was somehow true, we still don't know that his recollections were stored by his consciousness during that time, or were formed later (brains do this all the time, tricking people about what they saw and when they saw it - look at the unreliability of eyewitness testimony). In order for this experience to be incompatible with the brain/consciousness thing, we have to grant both of those implausible conditions. I can't understand why you're so willing to make both those leaps.
 
Mojo said:
This is not the same thing as the suggestion that you originally made
Click to expand...
'Xactly.

Since materialism is an impenetrable mystery to Ian, I doubt he can understand why the difference is so important.
 
Vikram said:
PixyMisa,

Do you have a fan club? If yes, is there any way I can get a membership?
Click to expand...

No.





At least not yet, that I'm aware of. You could perhaps start one, Vikram. And not even a million dollars could have made me stop myself from saying "No." like that!
 
Interesting Ian said:
Obviously the original brain tissue is not important because we're talking about a person. Our brain tissue gets replaced thoughout our lives, but we don't say we continually die all the time.
Click to expand...
Ian makes a scientific statement.

Ian gets it wrong again.

Information about brain cells .
It's nice big text Ian so it shouldn't be too taxing even for you.

But just in case you can't even be bothered to click on the link:
LIFE SPAN OF NEURONS

Unlike most other cells, neurons cannot regrow after damage (except neurons from the hippocampus). Fortunately, there are about 100 billion neurons in the brain.
Click to expand...
So no, Ian, they don't get replaced.

Has this put a bit of a dent in your theory?
 
As a matter of fact, scientists are trying to determine how brain cells can be artificially induced to reproduce so that the permanent loss of neurons that leads to Alzheimer's disease can be reversed. In the natural state, brain tissue certainly DOES NOT get replaced. Ian, you're just cooking up stuff again.
 
Hawk one said:
No.

At least not yet, that I'm aware of. You could perhaps start one, Vikram. And not even a million dollars could have made me stop myself from saying "No." like that!
Click to expand...
:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom