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

[Huggy Bear]

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.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor...=104397005

A Vision That Matches The Record

Afterwards, Reynolds assumed she had been hallucinating. But a year later, she mentioned the details to her neurosurgeon. Spetzler says her account matched his memory.

"From a scientific perspective," he says, "I have absolutely no explanation about how it could have happened."

Spetzler did not check out all the details, but Michael Sabom did. Sabom is a cardiologist in Atlanta who was researching near-death experiences.

"With Pam's permission, they sent me her records from the surgery," he says. "And long story short, what she said happened to her is actually what Spetzler did with her out in Arizona."

According to the records, there were 20 doctors in the room. There was a conversation about the veins in her left leg. She was defibrillated. They were playing "Hotel California." How about that bone saw? Sabom got a photo from the manufacturer — and it does look like an electric toothbrush.

How, Sabom wonders, could she know these things?

"She could not have heard [it], because of what they did to her ears," he says. "In addition, both of her eyes were taped shut, so she couldn't open her eyes and see what was going on. So her physical sensory perception was off the table."

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?)

Wait....

All I asked you for was a simple definition of 'resurrection' and instead of providing dictionary definitions like you did with 'death' you choose to filibuster?

From the exact same source you quoted from.

---

brain death noun
Definition of brain death

: final cessation of activity in the central nervous system especially as indicated by a flat electroencephalogram for a predetermined length of time

---

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

resurrect verb
Definition of resurrect

1 : to raise from the dead

Now my point to you was, your definition of death doesn't allow for resurrection "supernatural" or otherwise, because no matter what, a person could never be defined as dead if the condition was reversed.

Got it?

[pocaracas]

A year later???
Get out of here!

[Huggy Bear]

A year later???
Get out of here!

Hold on... let's not get ahead of ourselves, let's address this issue first.

Was I wrong when I stated?...

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.

[pocaracas]

A year later???
Get out of here!

Hold on... let's not get ahead of ourselves, let's address this issue first.

Was I wrong when I stated?...

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.

If you tell me that the recounting happened a year later, the staff would mostly be aware of the standard equipment used for that sort of operation, while the woman would have had a year to learn about the procedure...
As for the conversation... Lol, do you remember the conversation you had at your last work meeting? (If you do that sort of thing)
So that statement is, at best, anecdotal as evidence of anything.

[Huggy Bear]

You didn't answer the question.

[Angrboda]

Wait....

All I asked you for was a simple definition of 'resurrection' and instead of providing dictionary definitions like you did with 'death' you choose to filibuster?

From the exact same source you quoted from.

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

resurrect verb
Definition of resurrect

1 : to raise from the dead

Now my point to you was, your definition of death doesn't allow for resurrection "supernatural" or otherwise, because no matter what, a person could never be defined as dead if the condition was reversed.

Got it?

And I pointed out to you that your question was irrelevant for two reasons.

First, the word resurrection even if inconsistent with the medical, legal, and common usage definition of death doesn't change the meaning of what you said. You're free to argue with the dictionary all you like. The common usage of the terms death and brain death include the stipulation that the condition is irreversible. You can argue about the meaning of the word resurrection until the cows come home, it won't change that fact. It isn't 'my' definition, it is the accepted definition of English speakers, and is the operative definition here. Your complaint about the word resurrection doesn't change that. If you want to have a silly argument about the meaning of the term brain death, start a thread about it. We know what you meant by it, because of your earlier remark about absolutely zero brain functionality, and what you meant was to imply something that was factually incorrect.

And second, and more importantly, it was irrelevant because the issue was whether or not describing Pam Reynolds' state when she had her NDE as having absolutely zero brain functionality or being brain dead was grossly misleading and wrong. She wasn't anywhere close to either of those conditions. We know this because Reynolds' NDE includes a report about her surgical team discussing the insufficient size of her arteries, an event which occurred long before her brain was flatlined and while it was still fully supplied with blood and oxygen. So your description in her case was woefully distorted and wrong, and in other cases it's unclear how much brain functionality other veridical NDE experiencers had at the time of their NDE, but it's far from zero, so you are wrong in that as well. With people like Howard Storm, the answer to how much brain function they likely had is a lot. Surveys show that fully a third of people who have NDEs have them without being even remotely near death. As noted earlier, you're simply trying to misrepresent the facts with misleading and inaccurate language.

Got it?

[Angrboda]

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.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor...=104397005

A Vision That Matches The Record

Afterwards, Reynolds assumed she had been hallucinating. But a year later, she mentioned the details to her neurosurgeon. Spetzler says her account matched his memory.

"From a scientific perspective," he says, "I have absolutely no explanation about how it could have happened."

Spetzler did not check out all the details, but Michael Sabom did. Sabom is a cardiologist in Atlanta who was researching near-death experiences.

"With Pam's permission, they sent me her records from the surgery," he says. "And long story short, what she said happened to her is actually what Spetzler did with her out in Arizona."

According to the records, there were 20 doctors in the room. There was a conversation about the veins in her left leg. She was defibrillated. They were playing "Hotel California." How about that bone saw? Sabom got a photo from the manufacturer — and it does look like an electric toothbrush.

How, Sabom wonders, could she know these things?

"She could not have heard [it], because of what they did to her ears," he says. "In addition, both of her eyes were taped shut, so she couldn't open her eyes and see what was going on. So her physical sensory perception was off the table."

The account you repeat conflates a number of things, in particular the conversation about the veins in her leg, her defibrillation, and the music in the operating theater. These things occurred at very different times, and none occurred when she was flatlined. The first occurred prior to her blood being drained, long before she was flatlined, and the others occurred as she was being revived, long after being flatlined.

So, as noted, you are wrong.

Two mischaracterizations of this case are particularly noteworthy, as their errors of fact greatly exaggerate the force of this NDE as evidence for survival after death. First, in their write-up of the first prospective study of NDEs, van Lommel and colleagues write:

"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)."

But anyone who gives Sabom's chapters on the case more than a cursory look will see two glaring errors in the descriptions above. First, it is quite clear that Pam did not have her NDE during any period of flat EEG. Indeed, she was as far as a patient undergoing her operation could possibly be from clinical death when her OBE began. Second, she had no cerebral cortical activity for no longer than roughly half an hour. Both of these facts are nicely illustrated in Figure 1 below.


Fig. 1. Timeline of Pam Reynolds' general anesthesia. The colored areas represent changes in body temperature: Green indicates a life-sustaining temperature; yellow, the mechanical cooling or warming of blood; red, the constant temperature of her deepest hypothermia. Most times marking events or temperatures are derived from Michael Sabom's account of Pam Reynolds' procedure provided in Chapters 3 & 10 of Light & Death.

Despite accurately reporting the facts, Sabom himself has encouraged these misrepresentations.

Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences

[Huggy Bear]

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor...=104397005

The account you repeat conflates a number of things, in particular the conversation about the veins in her leg, her defibrillation, and the music in the operating theater.  These things occurred at very different times, and none occurred when she was flatlined.  The first occurred prior to her blood being drained, long before she was flatlined, and the others occurred as she was being revived, long after being flatlined.

So, as noted, you are wrong.

Two mischaracterizations of this case are particularly noteworthy, as their errors of fact greatly exaggerate the force of this NDE as evidence for survival after death. First, in their write-up of the first prospective study of NDEs, van Lommel and colleagues write:

"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)."

But anyone who gives Sabom's chapters on the case more than a cursory look will see two glaring errors in the descriptions above. First, it is quite clear that Pam did not have her NDE during any period of flat EEG. Indeed, she was as far as a patient undergoing her operation could possibly be from clinical death when her OBE began. Second, she had no cerebral cortical activity for no longer than roughly half an hour. Both of these facts are nicely illustrated in Figure 1 below.


Fig. 1. Timeline of Pam Reynolds' general anesthesia. The colored areas represent changes in body temperature: Green indicates a life-sustaining temperature; yellow, the mechanical cooling or warming of blood; red, the constant temperature of her deepest hypothermia. Most times marking events or temperatures are derived from Michael Sabom's account of Pam Reynolds' procedure provided in Chapters 3 & 10 of Light & Death.

Despite accurately reporting the facts, Sabom himself has encouraged these misrepresentations.

Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences

There's one Major problem...

Your source is not in the least bit objective, infidels.org? really? If I posted info from a theist site would you'd reject it out of hand so why shoudn't I do the same?

Also a quote taken from your site states:

As Michael Sabom recounts in Light and Death, in August 1991 a then 35-year-old woman he called "Pam Reynolds" (a pseudonym) underwent an innovative procedure to remove a brain aneurysm.

Your source is stating that 'Pam Reynolds' is a fake name, which is demonstrably false
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds_case

Pam Reynolds Lowery (1956 – May 22, 2010), from Atlanta, Georgia, was an American singer-songwriter.

I mean, if they get that piece of basic information wrong, I'm supposed to trust the got everything else right?

Come on Jor, it seems like you're desperately grasping at straws.

[Angrboda]

The account you repeat conflates a number of things, in particular the conversation about the veins in her leg, her defibrillation, and the music in the operating theater.  These things occurred at very different times, and none occurred when she was flatlined.  The first occurred prior to her blood being drained, long before she was flatlined, and the others occurred as she was being revived, long after being flatlined.

So, as noted, you are wrong.

There's one Major problem...

Your source is not in the least bit objective, infidels.org? really? If I posted info from a theist site would you'd reject it out of hand so why shoudn't I do the same?

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.)

Also a quote taken from your site states:

As Michael Sabom recounts in Light and Death, in August 1991 a then 35-year-old woman he called "Pam Reynolds" (a pseudonym) underwent an innovative procedure to remove a brain aneurysm.

Your source is stating that 'Pam Reynolds' is a fake name, which is demonstrably false
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds_case

Pam Reynolds Lowery (1956 – May 22, 2010), from Atlanta, Georgia, was an American singer-songwriter.

I mean, if they get that piece of basic information wrong, I'm supposed to trust the got everything else right?

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.

Come on Jor, it seems like you're desperately grasping at straws.

[Angrboda]

There's one Major problem...

Your source is not in the least bit objective, infidels.org? really? If I posted info from a theist site would you'd reject it out of hand so why shoudn't I do the same?

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).

I posted the wrong link earlier.  The correct link for the Sabom and Tart articles is here (Journal Of Near-Death Studies, Volume 25, Number 4, Summer 2007).