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

[Angrboda]

Oh?  Well then perhaps you'd be more impressed with the testimony of renowned parapsychologist Charles Tart, who in an essay critical of Augustine's paper wrote that  Dr. Sabom  had reported  that  the veridical  parts of Reynolds's  NDE  occurred  before  cardiac  "standstill," and that in recounting the timing of Reynolds' NDE that Mr. Augustine had a valid point about said timing (Tart, 2007).  Or perhaps the words of Dr. Sabom himself, who wrote that he had read and agreed with Charles Tart's comments (Sabom, 2007), and that he acknowledged that Reynolds was placed on cardio-pulmonary bypass a full 20 minutes prior to her EEG reading flatlined, an event which could only have occurred following the conversation about the size of her veins (Sabom, 2007).

You were wrong.  Augustine has the facts right according to the very doctor who first reported her case.  She wasn't flatlined when she overheard the conversation about her veins, nor when the doctor cut into her skull with the bone saw.  It doesn't matter what the biases of the publication may be, given that he is right on the pertinent facts of the matter as attested to by both Dr. Sabom and Charles Tart, and, likely the head surgeon's report as well.

(ETA:  And no, if you posted information from a theist site I wouldn't reject it out of hand.  So, on that point you are wrong as well.)

Nowhere in your source does it stat that Pam is experiencing an NDE, they repeatedly state she is having an OBE, the two are similar but different.

Some NDE's do experience having an OBE but you do not have to be near death to have and OBE, anyone is capable of having one.

I don't know which source you are referring to here as all the sources I have quoted do in fact refer to Reynolds' NDE as such, but it doesn't matter anyway.  It's true that people can have OBEs without having an NDE, but I'm not understanding what relevance you feel that fact has to do with our discussion.  Our dispute concerns whether certain veridical experiences during Pam Reynolds' OBE occurrred while her brain was flatlined.  Since the relevant experiences relate to the OBE portion of her NDE, your point is of no relevance to the current discussion.  If you had a specific intention in raising the issue that you feel is relevant to our discussion, please explain what it is.

Now if you bothered to watch that video I posted the surgeon that performed the procedure said in regards to the notion that Pam simply had anesthesia awareness and I quote:

You might be able to make a case for that during the first couple of minutes of induction, but not after that. After that you are in a very deep anesthetic state, and in this particular case you are in the deepest anesthetic case possible.

Not to mention she had earphones in her ears making clicking sounds, so according to him, there is no possibility she heard anything with her ears.

that being said, the original question (before you popped up trying to argue definitions) was; is consciousness a function of the brain?

That's fascinating, but this current discussion has to do with whether you were wrong when you claimed that, "according to the medical staff performing the surgery, she was able to recount conversation and the equipment used to perform the surgery, [and] this would have been during the time she was flatlined."  I can understand your wanting to change the subject and avoid facing up to the fact that you were wrong, but I'd prefer to finish this conversation before turning to other matters.  If you'd rather dishonestly deflect from your failure here by changing the subject, I can't stop you from doing so, but it will reflect rather poorly on you.

As to the video, no I haven't watched the entire video.  If there is a relevant portion which you feel I am overlooking, you may bring it to my attention as you have here, or ask me to watch the entire video, in which case I would be more than happy to oblige.  As to whether Pam Reynolds could have heard the things she reports in her OBE through normal means, the evidence on that issue is inconclusive.  I don't know whether you're quoting Spetzler or Sabom here, but since neither of them have the relevant expertise or evidence to say conclusively one way or the other, it does not matter.  Since the issue isn't remotely relevant to the discussion at hand, I'm not going to debate the matter with you at this time.

As for the case Dr. Sabom's book, I don't have access to it, so I cannot corroborate it with the time line that you gave.

I'm shocked!  

Actually, I'm kidding.  I'm not surprised.  I likewise haven't read it, nor do I have access to it.  However, as I'll explain below, access to it is not required in order for us to draw appropriate conclusions about your statement relating certain elements of Reynolds' NDE and her being flatlined.  You do have access to the relevant facts otherwise.

Pam Reynolds was a pseudonym for Pamela Reynolds Lowery which was her name at the time of Dr. Sabom's writing about her case, having married Butch Lowery in 1995.  This fact is attested to by multiple authors (Charles Tart, 2012; Michael Schmicker, 2002; Michael C. Gibbs, 2003; Gerald Woerlee, cited 2017; and Michael Sudduth, 2016).  The only person who has any basic facts wrong here is you, Huggy, not Mr. Augustine.

Talk about irony...

Didn't you just accuse me of trying to argue with the dictionary?

You're free to argue with the dictionary all you like.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pseudonym

pseudonym noun
pseu·do·nym | \ˈsü-də-ˌnim
\
Definition of pseudonym

: a fictitious name

As you stated Pam Reynolds married Butch Lowery in 1995. However Pam's surgery was in 1991, Pam Reynolds was her name at that time, and in either case, neither are a fictitious name.

While I'm impressed by your confidence in your opinion, I'm not otherwise impressed.  You believe, as a result of some internet sleuthing and amateur detective work, that those who suggest that the name was a pseudonym were wrong and you were right, in spite of your not having read the most important source regarding the question, Dr. Sabom's book, Light and Death.  Given that others who are more familiar with the case and have actually read the relevant source document say otherwise, I'll put my faith in them over some internet rando who hasn't.  Your mileage may vary.  However, since the issue was raised in order to throw shade on Keith Augustine's account, and the relevant facts in his account have been independently confirmed by no less an authority than Dr. Sabom and Pam Reynolds herself, it no longer has any probative value relative to this discussion, and so I'm not going to waste any more time arguing this idiotic nonsense with you.  You're free to have the last word on this if you wish.


Now that I've dispensed with the red herrings and other irrelevant arguments that you've made, I want to lay out in detail what we do know about the relevant sequence of events in the Reynolds case and how we know them.  The relevant facts are as follows:

1. Pam Reynolds, while under anesthesia, experienced an OBE  in which she observed the surgeons operating on her skull using a bone saw.  We know this from Pam Reynolds' own account in which she details hearing a musical note, popping out of her head, and then observing the use of and sound of the bone saw.  See, for example, this NPR article on the matter, here (NPR, 2009).  Additionally, Charles Tart notes that the use of the bone saw occurred around 9:00 A.M.  (Tart, 2007).
2. Reynolds then overheard a conversation among the surgical team about the size of her veins.  We know that this occurred prior to the surgical team engaging the machine and starting cardio-pulmonary bypass by simple logic.  They could not have started the bypass if they had not even cannulated her veins yet. We know that this occurred after the observation of the bone saw by reference to Reynolds' own account, see here (NPR, 2009).
3. The cardio-pulmonary bypass was started.  This happened at 10:50 A.M.  We know this because Dr. Sabom testifies to this fact in his commentary on Keith Augustine's paper (Sabom, 2007).
4. The EEG monitoring Pam Reynolds' cortical activity flatlined at 11:10 A.M. and her brainstem activity ceased 14 minutes later at 11:24 A.M.  We know this because Dr. Sabom also testifies to these facts in his commentary on Keith Augustine's paper (Sabom, 2007).

So, looking at the timeline, it's obvious that her observation of the conversation regarding her veins and her observation of the equipment used to operate on her (the bone saw) occurred prior to her cortical activity flatlining.  So you were wrong, Huggy.  Now, I want you to acknowledge that you were wrong when you claimed that "she was able to recount conversation and the equipment used to perform the surgery, this would have been during the time she was flatlined." (here)