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

[Huggy Bear]

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.

*emphasis mine*
Taken from your link: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/675...25-no4.pdf

---

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:


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.

*emphasis mine*

You think I just made that up out of thin air? That is even what your own sources say that.

Taken from your own post.

"Sabom mentions a young American woman who had complications during brain surgery for a cerebral aneurysm. The EEG [electroencephalogram] of her cortex and brainstem had become totally flat. After the operation, which was eventually successful, this patient proved to have had a very deep NDE, including an out-of-body experience, with subsequently verified observations during the period of the flat EEG [emphasis mine] (van Lommel et al. 2044)."

Second, in his Immortal Remains—an assessment of the evidence for survival of bodily death—Stephen Braude erroneously describes the case as follows:

"Sabom reports the case of a woman who, for about an hour, had all the blood drained from her head and her body temperature lowered to 60 degrees. During that time her heartbeat and breathing stopped, and she had both a flat EEG and absence of auditory evoked potentials from her brainstem.... Apparently during this period she had a detailed veridical near-death OBE [emphasis mine] (Braude 274)."

YOU even emphasized those points, so how is it MY claim? My info is based on what Dr. Sabom wrote, HE'S the one that had access to the records...

---

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.

Talk about irony...

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


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

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)

*emphasis mine*



Again that is not MY claim it's Dr. Sabom's claim.

---

Get over yourself, not one Christian I know of addressed you or your OP. God gave you free will who am I to interfere? In any case I hope you find happiness, but I don't think you will, especially in asking advice from a group that's constantly depressed and suicidal...

Wrong.  Snowtracks quoted the OP and flat out told him we couldn't address his concerns.  See: https://atheistforums.org/post-1840344.html#pid1840344  Last I checked, he was on Team Christ.

Moreover, mental illness doesn't preclude one from offering good advice, nor is it a character flaw.

Didn't anyone ever explain to you that 'I' is a personal pronoun?

Therefore "not one Christian I know of addressed you or your OP." is speaking of me personally, seeing how I haven't read the whole thread, and even then he wasn't doing what Dragonfly accused him of doing.

If god is so all-powerful, why would he need these vultures to help cram their shit down people's throats?