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

[Angrboda]

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

Yes, he does refer to that part of her NDE as an OBE as well as referring to her overall experience as an NDE at other points in the article (e.g. "errors of fact greatly exaggerate the force of this NDE as evidence for survival after death"). As noted, OBEs sometimes occur without any corresponding elements of an NDE. When they do, however, the combined experience is considered an NDE and the OBE portion of it is considered an element of that NDE. This is perfectly consistent with Augustine's account as well as with what I said above that all the sources I had quoted refer to Pam Reynolds' experience as an NDE and consistent with standard usage. Additionally, some passages refer to specific parts of her NDE as an OBE. Exactly why you feel this is important or relevant I have no fucking idea. I asked you previously to explain what your intention in bringing it up was, but you chose to ignore my request. At best I can guess this is some reading comprehension fail like your example below. If it's something more than tell me what it is. What's your point, Huggy?

---

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.


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.


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.

First, I never claimed that you had simply made up the claim. And I did not say that it was your "claim" using claim as a noun, but that you "claimed," the verb, that those events occurred while Reynolds was flatlined. According to google, to claim, the verb, means to "state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof." You indeed were asserting that this was the case, even if you did provide support for your statement later. But you also went further than that. Upon being shown information which cast doubt upon Dr. Sabom's statement, instead of doing what I did and following the footnotes of Augustine's paper to the same information that I found wherein Sabom contradicted himself, you chose to double down and make an aggressive defense of your statement by making ridiculous ad hominem arguments against the Augustine paper. Even after I explicitly linked you to that information, you have continued to argue the point. And it's dishonest of you to bring up my quote of Sabom via Augustine as Augustine was in that passage drawing attention to how Sabom's claim was wrong, so trying to pass it off as something that I agreed with is just lying by quoting out of context. So, no, you didn't just pass off somebody else's claim. It became your claim when you restated Sabom's conclusions and then went on to aggressively defend his conclusions with additional arguments. But what is your ultimate point here, Huggy? That you're not responsible for the statements you make if they are based on something outside yourself? That's ludicrous! You wouldn't accept that for Khemikal's statement about bees or Pandemonium's statement about Denmark if they were to assert it, so why should it hold any weight with you? Indeed, if we can't hold you responsible for the statements you make, then I guess all your bloviation about how superior you are to atheists and what a critical thinker you are don't hold water because you aren't the one responsible for the statements you've made. You are responsible for the things you post, the arguments you make, and the beliefs you hold. That is just common sense. So exactly what point are you trying to make here by pointing out that "the claim" was Dr. Sabom's? What the fuck are you on about, other than muddying up the waters with more irrelevancies and red herrings?

Now, you ignored my prior request for an acknowledgement that you were wrong when you stated 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." Were you or were you not wrong when you said this?