[split] IF you deconverted in midlife, can you help?-NDE Discussion

[Angrboda]

Thank you.  I had surgery for a brain aneurysm once, but my situation was different.

Further on in the article, it is suggested that Ms. Reynolds' experience my not have occurred while she was flatlined.

Boru

Well according to the medical staff performing the surgery, she was able to recount conversation  and the equipment used to perform the surgery, this would have been during the time she was flatlined.

Wrong.

Yeah, for all intents and purposes, aside from the death part.  It's not a technicality, Huggy.  Survivalists like yourself intentionally equivocate upon the meaning of terms such as death and brain death in order to blur the distinction between near death and actual death, so that they can misrepresent the evidence and make false arguments.  I get it.  From what I remember, lying isn't wrong if it's done for a good cause according to some Christians.   It's still an error to refer to cases such as the Pamela Reynolds case as "purposely inducing brain death."  For what it's worth, I took Poca's reference as a sarcastic comment upon your "absolutely zero brain functionality" comment.  The fact is that the brains of people who experience NDEs retain a considerable amount of functionality.  If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to be revived.  Brain function is not simply what can be measured by an EEG, and even that is a matter of some speculation.  Exactly what brain processes are active during an NDE is central to the entire question.  And we simply don't know in cases such as those of veridical NDEs such as the ones you cite.   So you started by making false statements about near death experiences, and then when Poca commented upon your claim, you doubled down upon the misrepresentation by implying that such people experienced brain death, and then had the chutzpah to try to blame it on Poca and misrepresent it as a mere matter of semantics.  What function the brains of near death experiencers like Pamela Reynolds retained at the time of their experience is central to such discussions.  It's not peripheral at all.  It's not a semantic argument at all.  It's the difference between the truth and a convenient misrepresentation.  Regardless, neither your statement about brain functionality or brain death were accurate, and the person responsible for both is you.

Ok, I'll play along. If death is "'irreversible" then define 'resurrection'.

Take Lazarus for example, regardless if you believe the story of not, according to your definition of death, despite being dead and buried for four days, even until the point of decay, Lazarus was never actually "dead" seeing how his condition was reversed.

'Resurrrection' is an incoherent notion that Christards believe in for no particularly good reason. Death and brain death are medical and legal definitions which are supported by common usage. 'Resurrection' is a colloquial concept which is inconsistent with the legal and medical definition of death and brain death. Now unless you are going to argue that medical and legal definitions should be constrained by colloquial usage, you have no point. We also say that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, despite knowing that it does neither of these things. Such inconsistencies in language are only a mystery to you. What we do know is that the medical, legal, and common usage definitions of death and brain death agree and are at odds with your usage. Bringing up the fact that other usages of language which you didn't use are inconsistent with them gets you nothing. If you were arguing that Pam Reynolds was resurrected, I seem to have missed it. What you did claim was that persons like Pam Reynolds suffered brain death, and no matter what else you say, you are still wrong. Bringing up a peculiarity of usage concerning resurrection doesn't change that. Moreover, since Lazarus and other resurrected figures had their deaths reversed by supernatural means, unless you want to claim that Pam Reynolds' survival of death was supernatural, again you have no point. So, fine, if you like, referring to resurrection as bringing people back from the dead is technically not an accurate usage of the concept of death. It's a nonsense idea which has no coherent definition. How you think this improves your argument is a mystery to me. As far as I can see, you're acting like yet another moron who doesn't know what the 'N' in NDE stands for. It's right there in front of your face. Are you really this stupid? The larger point here, which you're desperately trying to evade with this nonsense, is that there are considerable differences between the state in which people experience NDEs and those that characterize people who are truly dead. If you give but a moments thought to the matter, it's apparent that for someone who by this time stinketh to be returned to life requires recreating biological structures that, at the time, are no longer existent. How you think such an act of supernatural creation has any bearing on the processes which are applicable to people who experience NDEs is something I'd dearly like to hear.

(If you really want to go whole hog on this, recreating the memories and such of a person isn't necessarily bringing them back to life. There is a very real philosophical issue as to what we mean by resurrecting someone because we have no complete understanding of what a person or self is, and the answer to such questions such as the transporter paradoxes. If we recreate your body, brain, memories and such multiple times in a Star Trek style transporter, have we created you or simply copied you? We don't have answers to such questions. Until we do, any notions of bringing 'someone' back from the dead by recreating what they would have been like prior to death is an unresolved philosophical puzzle. All this basically shows is that common usage doesn't offer clear guidance on metaphysics. Why should it? If you think it does, maybe you'd like to support that belief with an argument?)