Pam Reynolds Near-Death Experience [Archive] - Page 2

Dragon

17th August 2003, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by lekatt
I remember from the TV documentary there was conversation by the doctors she remembered during the surgery and other things besides the saw.

Doesn't matter much. There is enough evidence and proof available through the major sites to please anyone, except maybe a skeptic.

Love

lekatt, I saw nothing in the link you provided which amounted to proof of anything.

Van Lommel and Parnia do not offer their studies as proof.

If you type "NDE" in the Lancet search engine then you'll find other points of view which illustrate that the question of the mind transcending the body is still moot.

As Dr Susan Blackmore has pointed out there are several non-paranormal explanations for people seeming to descibe events which happened during their NDE - ".. information available at the time, prior knowledge, fantasy or dreams, lucky guesses, and information from the remaining senses. Then there is selective memory for correct details, incorporation of details learned between the NDE and giving an account of it, and the tendency to tell a good story"

Titus Rivas

17th August 2003, 02:08 AM

I guess I will have to relent and buy Pam's story for the full account unless you can tell us how long after she woke up was it that she recounted her near death experience? And if you can tell us what else she said other than the snippets in the website account that would be helpful also. NDE accounts are scrutinized very carefully as we have seen here.

I also thought I made it clear that there are still smoking guns in her story, there is no one saying she did not envision or have the experience she said or thought she had but the few examples given unfortunately do make up a part of the whole and are refutable. Seeing tunnels, lights, and dead relatives are not verifiable. Presumably there is a lot more but we don't have that information. Does anyone?
Steve, I never claimed that tunnels or lights would be 'verifiable'. Again, if anyone is not satisfied with the declarations by Pam, Dr. Spetzler and Dr. Sabom, it may be a good idea for him or her to personally ask them more specific questions. By now I've already done what I could, as far as I know. I haven't seen any real arguments yet that would invalidate the interpretation of the case as at least strongly suggestive of life after death.

Titus

Kerberos

17th August 2003, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If you have trouble with these links the full text of both studies, the British and the Dutch NDE studies are also linkable from the following page on my website and registration or fees are not necessary as they are hosted locally with both author's permission.

http://www.survivalscience.org/ndeobe.shtml

The links to the Dutch study which was published in the British medical journal THE LANCET are up top. If you scroll to the end of the page you will find the links to Dr Sam Parnia's study in the UK
which was published in the medical journal RESUSCITATION.

I went there and read the summary since I couldn't open the whole text. The study doesn't really indicate that NDE is paranormal it just proves that we don’t know exactly what causes it. To use that as proof that it’s paranormal is a classical “god of the gaps” fallacy.

Titus Rivas

17th August 2003, 02:42 AM

Had this been mentioned here already?
As it happens, Dr. Sabom did undertake a study twenty years ago to ascertain whether such details might be guessed at but found major inaccuracies in the control group who did not claim to have had an OBE during an operation. , according to a report by David Lorimer on the Wales Seminar of Science, Consciousness and Ultimate Reality (http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/templeton/reports/report_wales.htm) held on September 20th-22nd, 2002.

So much for Sue Blackmore's bold 'explanation' of NDEs.

Titus

Interesting Ian

17th August 2003, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
Originally posted by Titus Rivas

Skeptics always assert, imply, or insinuate that unless there is incontrovertible proof of an afterlife so that any other more "mundane" explanations simply cannot conceivably explain the facts, then the most rational approach is to suppose that such a mundane explanation applies, no matter how wildly implausible and convoluted this mundane explanation might be!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, we nasty cynical skeptics won’t accept a paranormal explanation unless all the non-paranormal have been ruled out. What I find interesting is that the believer scientists never seem to bother using a protocol that does exclude every non-paranormal explanation and if they do the experiment is either a failure or it can’t be replicated.

Speaking as a nasty suspicious skeptic I’d say that this is because the phenomena they examine don’t really exist, but then I’m “completely bewitched by the common western metaphysic” more commonly known as science.

I wrote the above, not Titus. Could you provide references for your allegation that scientists sympathetic to the existence of anomalous phenomena do not use proper protocols?

BTW science has nothing to do with materialism. Science in no shape or form supports the materialist metaphysic. If anything it is more supportive of idealism.

Interesting Ian

17th August 2003, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by Titus Rivas

Indeed, they might be due to telepathy or even a perceived OBE of the living person in question. In fact, there is a lot of evidence for veridical apparitions of the living. Apart from this, the fact that there are paranormal deathbed-visions that seem to relate to the afterlife, does not imply there aren't a lot of non-paranormal deathbed-hallucinations too. Likewise, some extraordinary experiences that are interpreted as 'real' (survival-related) NDEs might actually be dreams.

Titus [/B]

Yes, some very good points Titus.

Jeff Corey

17th August 2003, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
BTW science has nothing to do with materialism. Science in no shape or form supports the materialist metaphysic. If anything it is more supportive of idealism.
All nonsense.

Interesting Ian

17th August 2003, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
BTW science has nothing to do with materialism. Science in no shape or form supports the materialist metaphysic. If anything it is more supportive of idealism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All nonsense.

OIC Now I know :rolleyes:

lekatt

17th August 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Dragon

lekatt, I saw nothing in the link you provided which amounted to proof of anything.

Van Lommel and Parnia do not offer their studies as proof.

If you type "NDE" in the Lancet search engine then you'll find other points of view which illustrate that the question of the mind transcending the body is still moot.

As Dr Susan Blackmore has pointed out there are several non-paranormal explanations for people seeming to descibe events which happened during their NDE - ".. information available at the time, prior knowledge, fantasy or dreams, lucky guesses, and information from the remaining senses. Then there is selective memory for correct details, incorporation of details learned between the NDE and giving an account of it, and the tendency to tell a good story"

P. van Lommel went on to say: "Several theories have been proposed to explain NDE. We did not show that psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factors caused these experiences after cardiac arrest."

That's all you needed to read. That is what every serious NDE researcher has been saying for over 30 years. They are all qualified, Dr, Raymond Moody, Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, Dr. Barbara R. Rommer, Dr. Melvin Morse, Dr. Kenneth Ring, to name a few. Some of these researchers spent their whole lives on the subject.

The experience is not caused by the dying/dead physical body.
Every experiencer knows this, and actually reading the experiences will show how and why they know this.

Now, of course, each person may believe as they wish. Truth will surface no matter how strongly it is suppressed.

We can't prove there is a spiritual world to those not experiencing it. But several researchers have developed means to do this.

The Robert Monroe Institute offers courses on discovery and claims an 80 percent success rate. Those who want to find out might investigate this.

Love
Leroy

Kerberos

17th August 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I wrote the above, not Titus. Could you provide references for your allegation that scientists sympathetic to the existence of anomalous phenomena do not use proper protocols?

BTW science has nothing to do with materialism. Science in no shape or form supports the materialist metaphysic. If anything it is more supportive of idealism.

Sorry I copy-pasted the ehh.. Quotation commands and forgot to correct the attribution. As for my statement that believer scientists don't use proper protocol, I said that they never did and if they did the results were negative or couldn't be replicated, which I'll admit is bad English so I corrected it.

However to take the two examples in the Pam case the scientist doing the research didn't even record exactly what Pam said upon waking up and in the Shoe-case there's no real evidence that the incident even happened.

I suppose I'm generalizing somewhat, but I really don't think that you'd be complaining that skeptics don't accept anecdotical evidence that even if taken on face value could easily be explained by cheating, if you had bulletproof scientific evidence.

I agree that science is not by nature materialistic, but science is inherently skeptical of claims that fall outside what is known to be possible. It requires much more evidence to prove a new natural or supernatural law or phenomenon than to prove another case of an already proven one.

Dragon

17th August 2003, 02:29 PM

"...We did not show that psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factors caused these experiences after cardiac arrest."

lekatt, do you understand what the above sentence means? I think not. Van Lommel is saying that this study does not show that these "mundane" explanations caused the NDEs - that is not the same as saying "These explanations are false". Neither is it the same as saying "This proves that the mind/soul is a separate entity from the brain"

Loki

17th August 2003, 04:03 PM

Titus Rivas,

So much for Sue Blackmore's bold 'explanation' of NDEs.

You'd be aware of the problem in moving from the Sabom research to this conclusion regarding the PR case, right? Something about probability, unlikely things do happen, etc, etc?

Again, if anyone is not satisfied with the declarations by Pam, Dr. Spetzler and Dr. Sabom, it may be a good idea for him or her to personally ask them more specific questions.
But again, you seem to appealing to authority here - "these people were there, they can't be wrong or mistaken - they are too clever" seems to be your point. If I was to question these 3, and find that they stand by their statements, how do you propose that I eliminate the 2 alternatives I previously mentioned - luck, and fraud. One or more may be lying. Her testimony may be simply a combination of facts she already knew, facts she "deduced" (as Steve points out, pain in the groin as she awoke would certainly give her "opportunity" to focus on this area) and "imaginitive guesses".

You've returned to this point several times - you seem to be saying that if anyone has any doubt, they can directly approach the people involved, two of which are highly credentialed, and at least one (the neurosurgeon) appears to have no prior commitment to the NDE cause, and get clarification. But this isn't addressing the issue - to be "good evidence", it must (at least)eliminate mundane explanations. It doesn't. This case doesn't even attempt to do so. It may be a fascinating anecdote, but it's evidential value seems limited.

lekatt

17th August 2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Dragon

lekatt, do you understand what the above sentence means? I think not. Van Lommel is saying that this study does not show that these "mundane" explanations caused the NDEs - that is not the same as saying "These explanations are false". Neither is it the same as saying "This proves that the mind/soul is a separate entity from the brain"

I really can read and comprehend what I read.

It says that the study did not show NDEs being caused by physical means.

Skeptics are saying NDEs are caused by physical means, so the skeptics are wrong according to this study.

It is only natural to assume other causes.

Please don't assume that "intellectual snearing stance" with me, I will put my comprehension of words up against yours any day.

My profession was publishing, typesetting, advertising and other printed material before I retired.

Diogenes

17th August 2003, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Titus Rivas

I haven't seen any real arguments yet that would invalidate the interpretation of the case as at least strongly suggestive of life after death.

Titus

I don't suppose because " she's still alive ", would count? :rolleyes:

Loki

17th August 2003, 05:57 PM

lekatt,

I really can read and comprehend what I read.

It says that the study did not show NDEs being caused by physical means.

Skeptics are saying NDEs are caused by physical means, so the skeptics are wrong according to this study.
Well, you did it again!! The two bolded statemetns above are not saying the same thing!

There are three, not two, outcomes for a study like this :

1. The study showed the effect "X' was caused by "Y".
2. The study showed the effect "X" could not be caused by "Y"
3. The study showed the effect "X" could not be concluded to be caused by "Y".

This study returned result 3, didn't it? But you are claiming it returned result 2?

Diogenes

17th August 2003, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
L: Especially the surgical saw, which was a new device used for the first time, and Pam described it perfectly.

If you scroll up you will note that her description of the saw is the only part of the clinical procedure which has validity as I maintain its use was after she was cooled and drained of her blood supply.

Where has this been verified? Did you ask Dr. Spetzler? ( That it wasn't used before she was cooled and drained of her blood supply. )

Diogenes

17th August 2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
I simply find these possibilities less plausible than the interpretation that she really perceived things that happened during her (practically) flat EEG and that were unknown to her beforehand.

Titus

And when are you going to tell us what those ' things ' are?

lekatt

17th August 2003, 08:53 PM

reprise

17th August 2003, 09:14 PM

Ah, it looks like lekatt tired of the Great Debates forum at the SDMB. You might find a bit more support for your theories over at the Reader's Digest forums, lekatt.

There are many reasons why the Netherlands study is an interesting one, and it's certainly one of the more scientifically conducted studies into NDEs, but it falls far short of establishing proof of the post-mortem survival of consciousness.

I'm curious about how those who believe that NDEs offer evidence of an "afterlife" explain the fact that NDEs are experienced by a minority of people who recover from cardiac arrest. How do believers explain why some people experience NDEs and others don't?

lekatt

17th August 2003, 10:00 PM

I guess I could explain that to you, as soon as you explain to me why each individual is so unique in their experiences, why a hundred people seeing a sunset, each see it differently and some not at all because they are looking the opposite direction.

The study is sound.

There will be more.

reprise

17th August 2003, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by lekatt
I guess I could explain that to you, as soon as you explain to me why each individual is so unique in their experiences, why a hundred people seeing a sunset, each see it differently and some not at all because they are looking the opposite direction.

The study is sound.

There will be more.

You can't have it both ways lekatt; if you're going to use this particular study to support the hypothesis that consciousness persists beyond bodily death (a conclusion NOT reached by those conducting the study) then you do need to explain why NDEs are not universally experienced by those who undergo cardiac arrest. Perhaps if NDEs are only experienced by a minority of those whose cardiac function is temporarily arrested, post-mortem consciousness only occurs in a minority of those who die.

Titus Rivas

18th August 2003, 02:43 AM

Michael B. Sabom replied yesterday telling me that he's following the thread and will jump in as soon as possible. It may take several days to weeks.

Titus

Dragon

18th August 2003, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by lekatt

I really can read and comprehend what I read.

It says that the study did not show NDEs being caused by physical means.

Skeptics are saying NDEs are caused by physical means, so the skeptics are wrong according to this study.

It is only natural to assume other causes.

Please don't assume that "intellectual snearing stance" with me, I will put my comprehension of words up against yours any day.

My profession was publishing, typesetting, advertising and other printed material before I retired.

Well, you haven't comprehended this at all - read Loki's post as he's put it better than I did.

It am not sneering, but you are just wrong.

lekatt

18th August 2003, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by reprise

You can't have it both ways lekatt; if you're going to use this particular study to support the hypothesis that consciousness persists beyond bodily death (a conclusion NOT reached by those conducting the study) then you do need to explain why NDEs are not universally experienced by those who undergo cardiac arrest. Perhaps if NDEs are only experienced by a minority of those whose cardiac function is temporarily arrested, post-mortem consciousness only occurs in a minority of those who die.

The study does support the fact that consciousness persists beyond bodily death. Just as hundreds of experiencers have related in their experiences.

I do not have to explain anything else. Why is each rose different, each tree different, maybe this and maybe that.
Some remember dreams and some don't, some have remembered their NDEs months or years after the experience.
Why, why, who knows, it doesn't change the study any at all.

Love

Titus Rivas

18th August 2003, 06:35 AM

Well put, Lekatt.

Why some people who have been clinically dead report NDEs whereas others don't, is primarily a question of memory: why do some people remember that they have had an NDE, whereas other's do not? It may well be the case that all have had an NDE, but that only a percentage remembers this. We can only ascribe lack of memories of an NDE to an absence of NDEs in some, after we have excluded the possibility of amnesia.

Titus

Kerberos

18th August 2003, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Well put, Lekatt.

Why some people who have been clinically dead report NDEs whereas others don't, is primarily a question of memory: why do some people remember that they have had an NDE, whereas other's do not? It may well be the case that all have had an NDE, but that only a percentage remembers this. We can only ascribe lack of memories of an NDE to an absence of NDEs in some, after we have excluded the possibility of amnesia.

Titus

The study excluded that NDE could be caused by anoxia (oxygen deprivation?) because then everybody should have experienced it. If you can invoke amnesia then surely we naturalist can too.

Titus Rivas

18th August 2003, 08:48 AM

Kerberos,

The study excluded that NDE could be caused by anoxia (oxygen deprivation?) because then everybody should have experienced it. If you can invoke amnesia then surely we naturalist can too. In fact, I personally have never held that this was the most important conclusion reached by Van Lommel et al. And I very much doubt they consider this their main finding themselves. Though it is still important to realize that anoxia alone cannot account for the fact that some patients report NDEs and some do not. (By the way, there are other, much more important arguments against the anoxia-hypothesis.)

Titus

Diogenes

18th August 2003, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by lekatt

Why, why, who knows, it doesn't change the study any at all.

Love

Exactly...

As opposed to:

The study does support the fact that consciousness persists beyond bodily death.

Kerberos

18th August 2003, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Kerberos,

In fact, I personally have never held that this was the most important conclusion reached by Van Lommel et al. And I very much doubt they consider this their main finding themselves. Though it is still important to realize that anoxia alone cannot account for the fact that some patients report NDEs and some do not. (By the way, there are other, much more important arguments against the anoxia-hypothesis.)

Titus

I don't see why it's unreasonable to invoke amnesia to defend anoxia, but not to defend a supernatural explanation. As for other arguments against anoxia I've been unable to get the full text and have thus only read the summery that somebody (Steve I think) posted a link to.

In any case the argument still seems to be the “NDE of the gaps” argument which is a classical logical fallacy.

Titus Rivas

18th August 2003, 09:06 AM

In any case the argument still seems to be the “NDE of the gaps” argument which is a classical logical fallacy.
Could you be more specific about this, Kerberos? What do you mean by the "NDE of the gaps"?
Again, I don't hold that the auxiliary hypothesis of amnesia should be denied to the anoxia-hypothesis, but simply that the latter is insufficient for other reasons.

Titus

Diogenes

18th August 2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by lekatt

If you go to the link provided and read the post, it contains the instructions to find the study.

It is on http://www.thelancet.com
then register and search for "near death"
the post contain information on the study also.

Another link at
http://ndeweb.com/wildcard

it contains a lot of info and links.

Yes, the site is mine.

Love

My search for ' near death ', turned up this article, which I found much more interesting..

" Dissociation in people who have near-death experiences: out of their bodies or out of their minds? " Bruce Greyson
Lancet Volume 355 Issue 9202 Page 460

Findings: People who reported NDEs also reported significantly more dissociative symptoms than did the comparison group. Among those who reported NDEs, the depth of the experience was positively correlated with dissociative symptoms, although the level of symptoms was substantially lower than that of patients with pathological dissociative disorders.

There is a fee for viewing the entire article...

lekatt

18th August 2003, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos

The study excluded that NDE could be caused by anoxia (oxygen deprivation?) because then everybody should have experienced it. If you can invoke amnesia then surely we naturalist can too.

How would this not be physical. The study showed that NDEs are not caused by the dying/dead physical body. That covers everything physical does it not?

lekatt

18th August 2003, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes

My search for ' near death ', turned up this article, which I found much more interesting..

" Dissociation in people who have near-death experiences: out of their bodies or out of their minds? " Bruce Greyson
Lancet Volume 355 Issue 9202 Page 460

There is a fee for viewing the entire article...

I wouldn't pay the fee to find out about a theory.

http://ndeweb.com/FAQz17.htm

Kerberos

18th August 2003, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Titus Rivas

Could you be more specific about this, Kerberos? What do you mean by the "NDE of the gaps"?
Again, I don't hold that the auxiliary hypothesis of amnesia should be denied to the anoxia-hypothesis, but simply that the latter is insufficient for other reasons.

Titus

I'm paraphrasing the expression "god of the gaps". It's essentially an argument that says that since science can't explain something yet that proves the existence of god or in this case the paranormal. From the summery it seemed that the study just provided evidence against some non-paranormal explanations, but no real evidence in favor of a paranormal explanation.

As for the anoxia hypothesis being insufficient for "other reasons" I'd appreciate if you'd be more specific.

Kerberos

18th August 2003, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by lekatt

How would this not be physical. The study showed that NDEs are not caused by the dying/dead physical body. That covers everything physical does it not?

To draw the conclusion that NDE's had no physical cause would require a total knowledge of how the brain worked and what happened when you almost die. Such knowledge doesn't exist

Interesting Ian

18th August 2003, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Loki
lekatt,

Well, you did it again!! The two bolded statemetns above are not saying the same thing!

There are three, not two, outcomes for a study like this :

1. The study showed the effect "X' was caused by "Y".
2. The study showed the effect "X" could not be caused by "Y"
3. The study showed the effect "X" could not be concluded to be caused by "Y".

This study returned result 3, didn't it? But you are claiming it returned result 2?

I think Loki that outcome 3 should be reworded slightly like so:

3. The study showed that although "Y" could not be conclusively shown to be not wholly responsible for the effect "X", every conceivable attempt to show that it was wholly caused by "Y" was a failure. Therefore the most reasonable conclusion was that it was not wholly caused by "Y" but that the effect "X" was at least partially explained by a spiritual element.

Interesting Ian

18th August 2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by reprise
Ah, it looks like lekatt tired of the Great Debates forum at the SDMB. You might find a bit more support for your theories over at the Reader's Digest forums, lekatt.

There are many reasons why the Netherlands study is an interesting one, and it's certainly one of the more scientifically conducted studies into NDEs, but it falls far short of establishing proof of the post-mortem survival of consciousness.

{shrugs}

Nothing in life outside maths and formal logic can be proved. If the evidence is highly suggestive, that is the most we can reasonably expect.

I'm curious about how those who believe that NDEs offer evidence of an "afterlife" explain the fact that NDEs are experienced by a minority of people who recover from cardiac arrest. How do believers explain why some people experience NDEs and others don't?

[/quote]

We don't know that do we. We know that some people forget for example. How do you know everyone doesn't forget who do not recollect an NDE? Anyeay, this is an equal difficulty for those who deny the survival hypothesis.

Interesting Ian

18th August 2003, 11:08 AM

Interesting Ian

18th August 2003, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Well put, Lekatt.

Why some people who have been clinically dead report NDEs whereas others don't, is primarily a question of memory: why do some people remember that they have had an NDE, whereas other's do not? It may well be the case that all have had an NDE, but that only a percentage remembers this. We can only ascribe lack of memories of an NDE to an absence of NDEs in some, after we have excluded the possibility of amnesia.

Titus

Ooops sorry, maybe I should read all the posts first before responding :) (I said this after you said it).

Interesting Ian

18th August 2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
[B]

I'm paraphrasing the expression "god of the gaps". It's essentially an argument that says that since science can't explain something yet that proves the existence of god or in this case the paranormal.

You seem to be conflating science with materialism. At the very least you should replace the word science with the word naturalism. But since materialism cannot explain conscious states whatsoever, then how could it explain special conscious states like NDE's? When you say "explained" are you simply referring to correlations between conscious states and brain states? Within the context of any materialist based metaphysic I'm not sure how an explanation could amount to more than that.

lekatt

18th August 2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Kerberos

To draw the conclusion that NDE's had no physical cause would require a total knowledge of how the brain worked and what happened when you almost die. Such knowledge doesn't exist

Why would you need to know everything about the brain, to know it was dead and consciousness continued. We know consciousness continues after death by the information NDEers bring back with them when they return to life.

I don't think this is a point at all.

Read in the neighborhood of 200 near death experiences and most of the questions asked by skeptics will be answered. You will know why and how NDEers know they were dead and came back to life, usually because some "light being" said they must.

As for learning how the brain works, I would say forget it.

http://ndeweb.com/info02.htm

Loki

18th August 2003, 04:52 PM

lekatt/Titus/Ian,

You seem to be missing Kerberos' point entirely - the question of 'remembering NDES' cuts both ways.

Lekatt says "the study eliminated 'physical' causes for NDEs." But how did the study do this? By comparing patients with the same physical conditions, and seeing if they had similar NDE experiences. For example (invented figures follow!) if 100 patients had anoxia, but only 20 reported NDEs, then the report concludes that anoxia is not the cause of NDEs. Taking this step by step :

Premise : If a patient suffers anoxia, they will have an NDE.
Fact : 100 patients had anoxia
Fact : 20 patients reported NDE's.
Conclusion : Anoxia does not *guarantee* an NDE.

That's what this report shows - they were unable to prove that physical conditions cause NDEs. That's not the same as proving that physical conditions don't cause NDEs!!!

How can that be? Simple - add in Titus' suggestion, for example :

Premise : If a patient suffers anoxia, they will have an NDE.
Fact : 100 patients had anoxia
Fact : 20 patients reported NDE's.
Premise : Not all people who have NDE's will remember them.
Conclusion 1 : Anoxia does not *guarantee* an NDE.
Conclusion 2 : Anoxia does guarantee an NDE, but most patients will not remember it.

Now, Lekatt, do you see the problem? How do you determine which of the two conclusions is correct? Can you see now why the study says :

"We have not proven that physcial conditons cause NDEs."

Can you see why the study does not say :

"We have proven that physcial conditions do not cause NDEs."

Failing to establish the "positive" does not mean that the "negative" has been established.

Dragon

18th August 2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I think Loki that outcome 3 should be reworded slightly like so:

3. The study showed that although "Y" could not be conclusively shown to be not wholly responsible for the effect "X", every conceivable attempt to show that it was wholly caused by "Y" was a failure. Therefore the most reasonable conclusion was that it was not wholly caused by "Y" but that the effect "X" was at least partially explained by a spiritual element.

Woah there Ian! Don't you think you're stretching this a bit?
Why not settle for "This looks interesting, but more study is required" ?

lekatt,

You haven't reponded to my last.
Do you now agree that -

"We did not show that psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factors caused these experiences after cardiac arrest"
does NOT mean the same as
"We showed that psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factors did not cause these experiences after cardiac arrest" ???

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

18th August 2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by reprise
I'm curious about how those who believe that NDEs offer evidence of an "afterlife" explain the fact that NDEs are experienced by a minority of people who recover from cardiac arrest. How do believers explain why some people experience NDEs and others don't?

I thought the same thing was used in the lancet study against the materialistic explanation. That does not go against survival because it probably varies with the amount of time it takes to get out of body for each individual after the heart stops, getting out may be easier for some then others. Who says you are suppose to pop out of body right away?

Jagger

18th August 2003, 07:16 PM

We need to differentiate between a physical trigger for the NDE experience and a physical process explaining the entire NDE experience. A physical trigger would simply initiate the NDE experience without necessarily invalidating a mystical experience. However if a physical process were discovered which completely explains the entire NDE expience, then the NDE could be invalidated as a mystical experience.

I think a physical trigger should not be surprising. Obviously altering the brain has an impact on the consciousness. Drink enough beer and watch the reaction of the consciousness. So we should not be astounded if a physical trigger were found for the NDE.

But on the otherhand, I would not be surprised if the trigger was based on non-physical causes either. Altering the consciousness has an impact on the body. For example, if tomorrow I know I must walk into a den of hungry lions, tonight my body and I would not sleep well due to anxiety and my probable impending doom. IMO this anxiety is a consciousness driven or non-physical reaction. Then we have examples of NDE's triggered in extreme fear conditions in perfectly normal and undamaged bodies. So the trigger could be non-physical.

Obviously there are links between the brain and cosciousness.

Lommels report and others eliminate known psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factors for a physical origin explaining the entire NDE experience-such as the anoxia idea or any of Blackmores hypotheses. However I don't believe these studies eliminate known factors for a physical trigger. I don't beleive triggers were specifically examined. So we are back to square one when it comes to a materialist explanation for the entire NDE experience.

Regardless there still must be a trigger either physical or non-physical. Regardless of the type of trigger found, the trigger would not invalidate the NDE experience. A physical trigger could initiate a mystical experience. If the trigger is physical, I think ultimately we will find it. And if the trigger is non-physical, I doubt we will find it.

And there must be an explanation for the entire NDE experience. It could be either an authentic mystical experience or a purely physical process. Even if we find a trigger, I am not sure that we would be able to fully understand and explain the NDE experience. But artificially triggered NDE's would offer that potential.

The biggest hurdle to completely explaining the entire NDE experience as a purely materialist/physical process are accurate observed observations such as Pam Reynolds. A purely materialistic explanation for Pam Reynolds observations can't exist. It just can't be done without violating physical cause and effect. If Pam Reynolds and others are actually making accurate observations with a non-functioning brain and from a position outside their body, then the brain and consciousness must be two separate entities. Which then lends credence to the NDE as a truly mystical experience.

Jagger

18th August 2003, 08:01 PM

The first problem is that the story could have been exaggerated. Considering that Pam was apparently already involved in a study of NDE when she was operated it should have been simple to record exactly what she said when she woke up thus conclusively proving exactly what happened but for some reason or another this wasn't done and as a result the incident is useless as scientific evidence.

Kerberos, do you have a reference stating that Reynolds was involved in an NDE study with Dr Sabon prior to her NDE? I am reasonably certain that he didn't contact Reynolds until after her NDE. If so, this would explain why immediate recording were not made of her experience.

Although we have to keep in mine that most people with NDE's are in danger of losing their life. The first priority is typically their survival rather than a study.

The second is that all of the things Pam saw in he NDE was things she could have known in advance. Even if she wasn't briefed on the procedure she could have researched it by herself. This problem could also be solved relatively easily fx by taking 3 pictures from a hundred picture sample and placing them at a spot where the patient couldn't see them unless he or she had and OBE.

I don't believe her chances of survival within this surgical procedure was very high. I think your hypothesis that she spent what was very possibly her last days on earth preparing a hoax stretches credibility. And if we assume she did research the operation to exacting detail, how was she able to recount observations independent of the procedure such as conversations, actions of specific doctors, etc without a functioning brain? To complete a hoax with the detail of Reynolds, the doctors and nurses would have to assist in the hoax by confirming observations independent of the actual procedure. You are suggesting a very elaborate hoax assisted by highly respected doctors and nurses with nothing to gain. I just don't find this hypothesis credible with human nature considering the individuals involved.

Although I am curious whether you have any evidence which supports your idea that the Pam Reynolds study may be a fraud?

reprise

18th August 2003, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Jagger :

Kerberos, do you have a reference stating that Reynolds was involved in an NDE study with Dr Sabon prior to her NDE? I am reasonably certain that he didn't contact Reynolds until after her NDE. If so, this would explain why immediate recording were not made of her experience.

From the link given in the OP :
Pam was participating in an Atlanta near-death study by Dr. Sabom at the time of her standstill operation. As her operation was being performed, she experienced an NDE.

Originally posted by Jagger :

And there must be an explanation for the entire NDE experience. It could be either an authentic mystical experience or a purely physical process. Even if we find a trigger, I am not sure that we would be able to fully understand and explain the NDE experience. But artificially triggered NDE's would offer that potential.

This is somewhat akin to saying that there must be an explanation for the content of dreams, or the content of schizophrenic hallucinations, or why the thought "I want ice-cream" pops into your head".

NDEs have been artificially triggered in some people by direct stimulation of the brain. They have also been reported by people who have taken certain street drugs. And one very interesting question which needs further research is "what are the common factors between those who experience NDEs"? To my knowledge, the suggestibility of those reporting NDEs hasn't been considered in any of the credible studies into the phenomenon (and we do know that not all of the population is equally able to be hypnotised). I'm not aware of any controlled study which has taken into account the participant's history of seizures or the absence thereof. There are so many physical means of inducing altered states of consciousness which have not been adequately researched in respect of NDEs, that explaining how they occur may be decades off - especially given the lack of research funds available for studying something which has no practical application and which is not "marketable". It may be many years before another study using the Netherlands protocol is undertaken, and it would require multiple studies of that size and nature to validate the initial findings.

Loki

18th August 2003, 09:02 PM

jagger,

Lommels report and others eliminate known psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factors for a physical origin explaining the entire NDE experience-such as the anoxia idea or any of Blackmores hypotheses.
Doesn't the report only *at best* eliminate any single "psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factor" as the case of NDEs? This is the inverse of the earlier methodology :

Premise : If a patient has and NDE, they will suffer anoxia.
Fact : 100 patients reported NDEs
Fact : 20 patients had anoxia.
Conclusion : NDEs cannot be caused by anoxia *alone*.

How could we extend this conclusion to become "NDEs cannot be caused by anoxia *at all*"?

Jagger

18th August 2003, 09:17 PM

From the link given in the OP

Reprise, where is this link and what is the OP?

This is somewhat akin to saying that there must be an explanation for the content of dreams, or the content of schizophrenic hallucinations, or why the thought "I want ice-cream" pops into your head".

I do believe there is an explantion. From our limited understanding of the universe, everything follows a underlying logic of some sort. We just may not understand the logic.

NDEs have been artificially triggered in some people by direct stimulation of the brain. They have also been reported by people who have taken certain street drugs.

Is this true? I am unaware of any artificially triggered NDE's. I have heard of artifically triggered OBE's. Is this what you are referencing? If NDE's, could you direct me to the sources?

The ketamine experiences are very interesting. I think further study may give hints of the trigger for NDE's. Also I would be curious as to whether ketamine experiences produce accurate out of body observations similiar to the NDE. Interestingly, Dr Karl Jenson, the guru of ketamine studies has shifted to a more mystical explanation for his findings:

http://mindspring.com/~scottr/nde/jansen1.html

'I am no longer as opposed to spritual explanations of these phenomena as this article would appear to suggest. Over the past two years (it is quite some time since I wrote it) I have moved more towards the views put forward by John Lilly and Stan Grof. Namely, that drugs and psychological disciplines such as meditation and yoga may render certain 'states' more accessible. The complication then becomes in defining just what we mean by 'states' and where they are located, if indeed location is an appropriate term at all. But the apparent emphasis on matter over mind contained within this particular article no longer accurately represents my attitudes. My forthcoming book 'Ketamine' will consider mystical issues from quite a different perspective, and will give a much stronger voice to those who see drugs as just another door to a space, and not as actually producing that space'.

And one very interesting question which needs further research is "what are the common factors between those who experience NDEs"? To my knowledge, the suggestibility of those reporting NDEs hasn't been considered in any of the credible studies into the phenomenon (and we do know that not all of the population is equally able to be hypnotised).

Common factors have been extensively studied. There are a series of accepted criteria for determining NDE's.

I am not following your point concerning suggestibility or hynotisism. What are you suggesting?

I'm not aware of any controlled study which has taken into account the participant's history of seizures or the absence thereof. There are so many physical means of inducing altered states of consciousness which have not been adequately researched in respect of NDEs, that explaining how they occur may be decades off - especially given the lack of research funds available for studying something which has no practical application and which is not "marketable". It may be many years before another study using the Netherlands protocol is undertaken, and it would require multiple studies of that size and nature to validate the initial findings.

I agree. We have thousands of NDE's to study. Money and time is need to do the studying.

Jagger

18th August 2003, 09:32 PM

Doesn't the report only *at best* eliminate any single "psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factor" as the case of NDEs?

I can't speak for Dr Lommel. I can only interpret the conclusion as I understand them in the report. Here is the exact wording:

"We did not show that psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factors caused these experiences after cardiac arrest."

I am assuming this means he could not find factors which could consistently explain all aspects of an NDE.

Is there a specific theory you are considering which covers all factors of an NDE?

How could we extend this conclusion to become "NDEs cannot be caused by anoxia *at all*"?

We can say that we have NDE's without anoxia. The inconsistency suggests that anoxia is not the origin of NDE's. Of course, there may be many triggers that can cause NDE's on an irratic basis. But then we can't be certain they are triggers. What we want to find is some factor or combination of factors which consistently trigger NDE's. Then we know we have a definite trigger.

Looking for the trigger is important. But we can't lose track of accurate observations impossible from the position of the body with a non-functioning brain such as Pam Reynolds case. To me, this is the key piece of evidence which needs to be explained and understood.

reprise

18th August 2003, 10:08 PM

To me, this is the key piece of evidence which needs to be explained and understood.

And to many of us, this is the key piece of evidence which needs to be proven. There are a great many anecdotes about "exterior observation", but many of them turn out to have extremely mundane explanations when examined in depth.

My personal pet theory? NDEs will ultimately be proven to be just another disassociative state caused by either chemical or electrical disorder in the body or a combination of both. When we understand the chemical/electrical mechanism which is at work during NDEs, we will be better able to explain why they are experienced by some people but not by others.

Jagger

18th August 2003, 10:25 PM

And to many of us, this is the key piece of evidence which needs to be proven. There are a great many anecdotes about "exterior observation", but many of them turn out to have extremely mundane explanations when examined in depth.

Do you consider the Reynolds case to be anecdotal? Documentation consists of Renold's testimony in conjunction with the testimony of the surgery team. Where is the weak link in all of this highly documented testimony?

I am curious what sort of mundane explanation exists in the Reynolds case considering the documentation.

NDEs will ultimately be proven to be just another disassociative state caused by either chemical or electrical disorder in the body or a combination of both.

Is there any sort of disassociative state that allows for accurate observations impossible from the position of a body with a non-functional brain?

I am curious what you would expect the consciousness to experience as the brain ceases functioning assuming the consciousness is emergent from the brain? Would you describe an expected physical cause and effect result on the consciousness as portions of the brain shuts down to a non-functioning state.

Jagger

18th August 2003, 10:31 PM

From Lummels study, here is another example of a confirmed observation by a nurse working with an individual which experienced an NDE. When you read it, note the striking similiarity to Reynolds experience. From above his body, he is observing the actions of those attempting to revive him while cyanotic and comatose. And like Reynolds, his observations are independently confirmed as accurate.

The accurate observations from a position impossible to observe from the body and with a non-functioning brain is what makes the NDE such a challenge to the purely materialist universe of science.

"During a night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-year-old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care unit. He had been found about an hour before in a meadow by passers-by. After admission, he receives artificial respiration without intubation, while heart massage and defibrillation are also applied. When we want to intubate the patient, he turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures and put them onto the 'crash car'. Meanwhile, we continue extensive CPR. After about an hour and a half the patient has sufficient heart rhythm and blood pressure, but he is still ventilated and intubated, and he is still comatose. He is transferred to the intensive care unit to continue the necessary artificial respiration. Only after more than a week do I meet again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. I distribute his medication. The moment he sees me he says: 'Oh, that nurse knows where my dentures are'. I am very surprised. Then he elucidates: 'Yes, you were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there you put my teeth.' I was especially amazed because I remembered this happening while the man was in deep coma and in the process of CPR. When I asked further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself. At the time that he observed the situation he had been very much afraid that we would stop CPR and that he would die. And it is true that we had been very negative about the patient's prognosis due to his very poor medical condition when admitted. The patient tells me that he desperately and unsuccessfully tried to make it clear to us that he was still alive and that we should continue CPR. He is deeply impressed by his experience and says he is no longer afraid of death. 4 weeks later he left hospital as a healthy man."

reprise

18th August 2003, 10:32 PM

Visions and memories occur while brain dead (http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html)

OP = original post

There are indeed standard criteria for "assessing" an NDE, based on the subjective experiences of the subject. There does not seem to be a standard assessment of medical and psychological history, though, and it's possible that there are physical or psychological (or both) common denominators between those who experience NDEs.

It might be a psychological state similar to post-traumatic stress syndrome, or it might be an organic condition which produces a predisposition towards hallucination. Or these people might already have a predisposition towards dissociative states. If these people are more highly hypnotisable than those who do not experience NDEs, then we need to explore the issue of confabulation (which is not deliberate deception, but rather the rational mind trying to fill in missing data). If these people are more suggestible than those who don't experience NDEs, then we need to look at what parts of their experience can be explained by suggestion alone.

I agree that NDEs need further study, Jagger - it's a pity that those who believe that NDEs offer evidence of "life after death" aren't willing to put up substantial funds to prove their hypothesis.

reprise

18th August 2003, 10:43 PM

The Near-Death Experience (http://www.jochenbarth.de/nde.htm)

What makes the amygdala a central candidate for explaining the NDE is its powerful role in the memory process, as it can make the re-experiences extremely vivid, including visual images and auditory fragments. This is what makes dreams so ‘real’. An enormous variety of (re)experiences can be ‘brought to life’ from the pool of memories by the amygdala in conjunction with the hippocampus. These experiences include, amongst others, feelings of depersonalization, hallucinative and dreamlike recollections involving religion and the experience of god, as well as demons and ghosts. This has been demonstrated in numerous studies (see Joseph, 1994, 1996 for summaries). Mac Lean (1990) reports individuals, that claim to communicate with spirits, or receive information about the hereafter following stimulation of the amygdala and the hippocampal-temporal lobe.

In the situations I described above, which create a hyperactivation of the amygdala, the hippocampus, being part of the same system, may be hyperactivated as well. This can create an image of the surroundings and the person himself. This hallucination can be so vivid that the person is convinced of having a ‘real’ experience. It has, in point of fact, been repeatedly demonstrated (e.g. Penfield and Perot, 1963) that the amygdala-hippocampus-temporal lobe complex can provoke some people to say that they have left their bodies when the complex is hyperactivated or directly stimulated. As noted above, people often report seeing a bright light often at the end of a tunnel. This could be due to hyperstimulation of the same complex, as it receives direct and indirect visual input and contains neurons that are sensitive to the fovea and the upper visual fields (Joseph, 1996). The hallucination of seeing a deceased relative or friend can be due to hyperactivation of the same complex as these images are accessible via the same memory process I described above. Again, it has been reported that the hallucinations just described can be induced via electrical stimulation of the amygdala-hippocampal complex and the temporal lobe (Joseph, 1996).

Jagger

18th August 2003, 10:50 PM

Visions and memories occur while brain dead

OP = original post

Wow. I am surprised. I am going to have to dig a little further. It is highly unusual for someone to be involved in an NDE study prior to their NDE since the experience of NDE's are so unpredictable. I will send an email to the website author who wrote the piece and see if he is absolutely certain on this point.

It might be a psychological state similar to post-traumatic stress syndrome, or it might be an organic condition which produces a predisposition towards hallucination. Or these people might already have a predisposition towards dissociative states. If these people are more highly hypnotisable than those who do not experience NDEs, then we need to explore the issue of confabulation (which is not deliberate deception, but rather the rational mind trying to fill in missing data). If these people are more suggestible than those who don't experience NDEs, then we need to look at what parts of their experience can be explained by suggestion alone.

Physical triggers or explantions are interesting but not crucial. To me, the key point is confirmed observations. If they are accurate, then the consciousness and mind are two separate entities. No matter how difficult to obtain, unquestionable confirmation would be revolutionary in our view of existence.

I agree that NDEs need further study, Jagger - it's a pity that those who believe that NDEs offer evidence of "life after death" aren't willing to put up substantial funds to prove their hypothesis.

It is amazing how expensive it is to conduct a study. And naturally, it is more logical to spend the funds on research that may extend life than what happens when someone dies. Although who knows, Bill Gates may step forward.

reprise

18th August 2003, 11:02 PM

Jagger, Titus has posted that Sabom is following this thread and will post when he has time, so perhaps we'll all be able to find out more when that happens.

It's frustrating that the "Atlanta near death study" link on the website leads only to a sales pitch for Sabom's book.

Jagger

18th August 2003, 11:06 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What makes the amygdala a central candidate for explaining the NDE is its powerful role in the memory process, as it can make the re-experiences extremely vivid, including visual images and auditory fragments. This is what makes dreams so ‘real’. An enormous variety of (re)experiences can be ‘brought to life’ from the pool of memories by the amygdala in conjunction with the hippocampus. These experiences include, amongst others, feelings of depersonalization, hallucinative and dreamlike recollections involving religion and the experience of god, as well as demons and ghosts. This has been demonstrated in numerous studies (see Joseph, 1994, 1996 for summaries). Mac Lean (1990) reports individuals, that claim to communicate with spirits, or receive information about the hereafter following stimulation of the amygdala and the hippocampal-temporal lobe.

Reprise, not to rule out the amygdala as a trigger, but will it produce experiences that are not dream like. Few NDE's are expressed as dreamlike. Most describe the experience as more real than life itself.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the situations I described above, which create a hyperactivation of the amygdala, the hippocampus, being part of the same system, may be hyperactivated as well. This can create an image of the surroundings and the person himself. This hallucination can be so vivid that the person is convinced of having a ‘real’ experience. It has, in point of fact, been repeatedly demonstrated (e.g. Penfield and Perot, 1963) that the amygdala-hippocampus-temporal lobe complex can provoke some people to say that they have left their bodies when the complex is hyperactivated or directly stimulated. As noted above, people often report seeing a bright light often at the end of a tunnel. This could be due to hyperstimulation of the same complex, as it receives direct and indirect visual input and contains neurons that are sensitive to the fovea and the upper visual fields (Joseph, 1996). The hallucination of seeing a deceased relative or friend can be due to hyperactivation of the same complex as these images are accessible via the same memory process I described above. Again, it has been reported that the hallucinations just described can be induced via electrical stimulation of the amygdala-hippocampal complex and the temporal lobe (Joseph, 1996).

I am curious whether the author has any studies supporting his hypotheses. I noticed a lot of "may happen" and "can be" and "can creates" which sounds more like hypotheses than supported theories.

I am also interested in how accurate are the recreations. Does the amygdala produce accurate recreations of the individuals surroundings as in NDE's?

Ideally we would have studies showing structured lucid thought with a non-functioning brain producing accurate, confirmed observations which are impossible from the position of the body. Kind of hard to do unfortunately.

Jagger

18th August 2003, 11:11 PM

It's frustrating that the "Atlanta near death study" link on the website leads only to a sales pitch for Sabom's book.

Reprise, actually I read the book. I assume that is his first book. It is very good. He has a number of statistically studies that are interesting and IIRC, it includes the Pam Reynolds case. Unfortunately, I loaned it out and don't have it available to source.

If he is following, maybe he can clarify when he first contacted Pam Reynolds.

reprise

18th August 2003, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by Jagger

Reprise, not to rule out the amygdala as a trigger, but will it produce experiences that are not dream like. Few NDE's are expressed as dreamlike. Most describe the experience as more real than life itself.

I am curious whether the author has any studies supporting his hypotheses. I noticed a lot of "may happen" and "can be" and "can creates" which sounds more like hypotheses than supported theories.

I am also interested in how accurate are the recreations. Does the amygdala produce accurate recreations of the individuals surroundings as in NDE's?

Ideally we would have studies showing structured lucid thought with a non-functioning brain producing accurate, confirmed observations which are impossible from the position of the body. However it would be a bit unethical.

The references are quoted on the website I linked to. The more recent studies, at least, should still be available.

Joseph's conclusions are interesting because his theory is that "spirituality" is self-protective evolutionary trait.

When most scientists use the term "hallucination" they use it correctly, ie to describe something which the subject experiences as real. Pseudohallucinations are generally recognised by the subject as having no objective reality. Hyper-reality - "more real than life itself" - is a documented feature of hypnagogic hallucinations.

I'm curious Jagger. Assuming that I was prepared to accept that consciousness persists beyond death - ie, that consciousness is not created and destroyed physically - where do you believe that consciousness exists prior to physical existence. Where was my or your consciousness prior to you or I having a physical existence and by what mechanism did it connect with my body?

Loki

18th August 2003, 11:36 PM

jagger,

Do you consider the Reynolds case to be anecdotal? Documentation consists of Renold's testimony in conjunction with the testimony of the surgery team. Where is the weak link in all of this highly documented testimony?
The "weak link" is that the documented testimony is the memories and opinons of Reynolds and the surgery team. This is not (necessarily) what actually happened.

No matter how difficult to obtain, unquestionable confirmation would be revolutionary in our view of existence.
I agree completely.

From Lummels study, here is another example of a confirmed observation by a nurse working with an individual which experienced an NDE. ... And like Reynolds, his observations are independently confirmed as accurate.
There are two issues here :

(a) "accurate observations" doesn't automatically mean "NDE is the mechanism by which the observations were made".

Using the example you have quoted, the patient identified where the false teeth were located, and said he "saw" them put there. Perhaps what really happened is that after he was resusitated, but still only semi-conscious, the nurses/orderlies wheeling him to a ward were talking and discussing how they couldn't believe how ugly his false teeth were, and how they were glad the teeth were safely stored in the trolley. He hears this information, and later (mistakenly) repeats it as part of his NDE. Do I think this happened? Probably not! But if we haven't eliminated this kind of "information leakage", then the patients opinion of where the observations were made (ie, during CPR) is anecdotal!

(b) just how "accurate" are the observations?

Again from the example you have quoted, how accurate really was the patient in describing the events? The nurse is recalling and retelling the story to the people conducting the study - perhaps she (inadventantly) adds a few details that were never there in the original conversation? The occasional "maybe" becomes "is"; "he asked" becomes "he said". Perhaps the patient also said some wildly inaccurate things, but these are forgotten or passed over becuase they don't match?

Jagger

18th August 2003, 11:36 PM

Hi Reprise, you are asking some interesting questions. However I have been tired for the last hour, it is late here and I have to get up early tomorrow morning.

Soooooo....I will get back tomorrow.

reprise

18th August 2003, 11:49 PM

One thing I think I've mentioned before is that I come out of general anaesthesia extremely quickly - I usually manage to startle the nurses in the recovery ward by being fully conscious in their area. Many people have no recollection of even being in recovery - they don't remember anything between anaesthesia induction and waking up in their hospital room - but there's an awful lot of conversation in the recovery room about how a procedure went and any special attention that should be paid to the patient in the recovery room.

I would not be surprised to learn that there are people who fall part way between myself and those who have no recollection at all of being in recovery - people who have fragmented memories of things which have occured between the time anaesthesia ceases and being returned to the general ward.

Titus Rivas

19th August 2003, 01:18 AM

Some members of this forum asked me why I don't consider the anoxia hypothesis a good, exhaustive interpretation of NDEs.

I've already said that Pim van Lommel et al are right that if all the patients in their study underwent anoxia, the latter cannot account for the fact that some patients recalled an NDE and others did not.

Another, even more important reason is also given by Pim van Lommel (http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/vanLommel.htm) in a response to a skeptical interpretation by Michael Shermer: Michael Shermer states that, in reality, all experience is mediated and produced by the brain, and that so-called paranormal phenomena like out-of body experiences are nothing more than neuronal events. The study of patients with NDE, however, clearly shows us that consciousness with memories, cognition, with emotion, self-identity, and perception out and above a life-less body is experienced during a period of a non-functioning brain (transient pancerebral anoxia). And focal functional loss by inhibition of local cortical regions happens by “stimulation” of those regions with electricity (photons) or with magnetic fields (photons), resulting sometimes in out-of-body states.

Bruce Greyson (http://www.lightparty.com/Spirituality/NearDeath.html) even thinks that anoxia would itself cause amnesia of NDEs:
My medical colleagues are quick to point out the biological effect of cerebral anoxia, or the effect of general anesthetics and narcotics used in a hospital. In order for this strictly neurophysiological explanation to carry weight, it would have to account for the entire core experience, but it most certainly does not. In addition, amnesia is a result of cerebral anoxia. NDE reports would not exist if cerebral anoxia were in effect.

On another site, Lack of Oxygen Theory, (I seem to have lost the url and can't find it anymore :( ) we read:

PRO: Neurologist Ernst Rodin offers cerebral anoxia as a possible cause of NDEs of the dying brain. Such anoxia produces a confusing dream-like state of delusions and hallucinations.
CON: Cardiologist Michael Sabom responded that the NDE involves a clear awareness and a more mystical content, and NDEs have also occurred in people without anoxia. Pim van Lommel led a study concerning NDEs during cardiac arrest. In our study all patients had a cardiac arrest, they were clinically dead, unconsciousness that was caused by insufficient blood supply to the brain, and the EEG has become flat. In patients cardiac arrest (ventricular fibrillation) is sometimes induced for testing internal defibrillators. In these patients the EEG becomes usually flat within 10-15 seconds from the onset of syncope due to the (reversible) total loss of function of the brain. According to the physiologic theory, all patients in our study should have had NDE, but only 18% reported NDE.

Even one of the main skeptical authors about NDEs, Susan Blackmore (http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/ShermerNDE.htm), has acknowledged by now that anoxia cannot account for all aspects of NDEs:

The argument over the role of anoxia has been complex. Some blame anoxia for all the features of the NDE, though this reasoning is implausible, since so many NDEs clearly occur in the absence of anoxia (e.g., when the person only thinks he or she is going to die).

Greg Stone (http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/gs_dying_to_live/gs_dying_to_live1.html) has written a more general critique of Blackmore's theories.

Michael Sabom would have found patients in which there was no anoxia during the NDE.

My own major reason to discard the anoxia-hypothesis is that it cannot account for paranormal, veridical perceptions during a practically flat EEG. Skeptics can only ignore such experiences or try to explain them away in normal terms. If one accepts there really are such experiences, no physical explanation could ever account for them.

Titus

Titus Rivas

19th August 2003, 01:27 AM

Kerberos said:
To draw the conclusion that NDE's had no physical cause would require a total knowledge of how the brain worked and what happened when you almost die. Such knowledge doesn't exist

You're wrong about this, at least to the extent that we would know what the brain's limitations are if we consider it (as we should) as as strictly physical system. As soon as we may be confident that no explanation of the NDE (and especially veridical perceptions during practically flat EEG) can be given in terms of brain physiology, we may be confident that something else, which involves human consciousness, is the cause of this type of experience. And that this entity continues to function after the brain has largely shut down and to an extent that cannot be caused by the body.

Titus

Loki

19th August 2003, 01:32 AM

Titus Rivas,

Even one of the main skeptical authors about NDEs, Susan Blackmore, has acknowledged by now that anoxia cannot account for all aspects of NDEs.
But again, this doesn't mean that it cannot account for some does it?

(quoted from the Lommel study) : According to the physiologic theory, all patients in our study should have had NDE, but only 18% reported NDE.
Alternatively, 82% experienced an NDE, but failed to recall it? How was this possibility eliminated?

Michael Sabom would have found patients in which there was no anoxia during the NDE.
Which means that anoxia *alone* cannot be the full explanation.

My own major reason to discard the anoxia-hypothesis is that it cannot account for paranormal, veridical perceptions during a practically flat EEG. Skeptics can only ignore such experiences or try to explain them away in normal terms. If one accepts there really are such experiences, no physical explanation could ever account for them.
I'd agree with this - if scientifically verified "veridical perceptions" can be reproduced then NDEs are beyond physical explanation. But surely it's necessary to eliminate any possible explanation using "normal terms" *before* concluding that these preceptions have been verified?

reprise

19th August 2003, 01:35 AM

Titus, it is NDE believers themselves who earlier in this thread offered amnesia as an explanation for why only some people experience NDEs (in effect postulating that ALL people experience them but only some recall the experience).

There are plenty of skeptics - myself included - who do not believe that anoxia alone causes NDEs, or even that anoxia is an essential factor at all.

I repeat my earlier question. If consciousness exists independently of the body, then where was my consciousness prior to my body being created and by what mechanism did it become connected with my body?

While declaring that no current physical theory wholly explains NDEs, I don't see those who believe that NDEs prove that consciousness survives post-mortem offering any theories which adequately address all the issues raised by that hypothesis.

Titus Rivas

19th August 2003, 01:35 AM

I'm paraphrasing the expression "god of the gaps". It's essentially an argument that says that since science can't explain something yet that proves the existence of god or in this case the paranormal. From the summery it seemed that the study just provided evidence against some non-paranormal explanations, but no real evidence in favor of a paranormal explanation.

Well, we do have (at least claimed) evidence for specifically paranormal factors, namely for veridical paranormal experiences during practically flat EEG.
It's not correct that we're guilty of a Deus ex machina, rather Deus (the paranormal experiences) has shown itself before we started theorizing about the NDE.

Titus

Titus Rivas

19th August 2003, 01:43 AM

I repeat my earlier question. If consciousness exists independently of the body, then where was my consciousness prior to my body being created and by what mechanism did it become connected with my body?
There are several possible models for this. One would be reincarnation. Another one would at least be preexistence. Of course I have my own views about this, but they would better be reserved for another thread.

However, for now it suffices to know that dualists (and other pluralists, as well as idealists) certainly seem to be the winners in the ontological debate. Regardless of how the theory will finally take shape.

Titus

Titus Rivas

19th August 2003, 01:50 AM

As Interesting Ian repeatedly put it, science does not equal materialism. It will take some time to change a lot of people's frame of mind, but many of us may live to see an era when materialism (and maybe even the debunking efforts of skeptics) will be considered as no more than a historically necessary phase in the development of science. Dualism (and other views which allow for the existence of a non-physical mind or self) and what is now known as "para"-psychology will then be integrated into science. It won't mean we will lose our minds or rationality. We will only gain by all this, as scholars and as human beings. Unless anyone would really prefer Monty Python's nihilist message (http://paul.merton.ox.ac.uk/filmtv/brian.html) :roll: , i.e. for non-humorous reasons.

Titus

lekatt

19th August 2003, 04:57 AM

I read all the posts and mostly they indicate a serious lack of knowledge of near death experiences.

Thirty years ago Dr. Raymond Moody showed that NDEs are not caused by a lack of oxygen.

Nearly all the questions asked can be answered by reading near death experiences. I recommend reading about 200 of them for a good introduction as to what they consist of. In the major NDE sites are about 500+ experiences. On my site, I spell check them and post them. There are almost 200 experiences on my site.

The skeptical media does not print all the information on NDEs, only the info that suits their opinions. If you have not read "raw" near death experiences you will not know what they are.

It seems you get lost in semantics and word usage more than you need to.

The report stated that a physical cause for NDEs was not found, or something like that and it is true that NDEs are not caused by the dying/dead physical body.

If you read the material you will understand.

Love

lekatt

19th August 2003, 05:02 AM

Here is a link to one.

http://ndeweb.com/FAQz05.htm

Interesting Ian

19th August 2003, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Unless anyone would really prefer Monty Python's nihilist message (http://paul.merton.ox.ac.uk/filmtv/brian.html) :roll: , i.e. for non-humorous reasons.

Titus [/B]

God I love that film! :D

Jeff Corey

19th August 2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

God I love that film! :D
At least we agree on something, except for the "God" part.
"Welease Bwian."

Jagger

19th August 2003, 07:26 AM

One quick post before I am out of here till tonight.

I'd agree with this - if scientifically verified "veridical perceptions" can be reproduced then NDEs are beyond physical explanation. But surely it's necessary to eliminate any possible explanation using "normal terms" *before* concluding that these preceptions have been verified?

Loki, the unpredictability of NDE's, the priority of the patients survival and lack of enough studies/funding make it very difficult to consistently have the level of documentation which we have in Pam Reynolds case even though we have thousands of NDE cases available.

Typically NDE experiences start with either an out of body or a void experience. Those with an OBE experience have the same qualities of Pam Reynolds experience. They are out of body and they can observe. As Lekatt suggests, after reading a couple of hundred NDE experiences, we see this same OBE experience with "what should be impossible" observations consistently in large numbers of cases.

Even though we don't have a large number of cases with verified observations, those cases support that the thousands of other unverified observations may also be accurate.

IMO, the sheer quantity of OBE observational experiences supported by the minority of cases with confirmed, documented OBE observations serves the role of "reproduceable" phenomenum beyond physical explanation. Each additional case that we find with confirmed observations further strengthens the thousands of other non-documented cases. For the moment, this is the best we have to consider. I think what we currently have is enough to be considered compelling.

And I agree we should example common normal explanations closely. But we also shouldn't rely on mundane explanations which strech credibiliy. Then we end up with complicated, extraordinary and unbelievable rather than mundane and we may ignore the simpler, obvious explanation. In the Reynolds case for example, I cannot come up with a believable mudane explanation considering the condition of her mind at the time of the observations.

Diogenes

19th August 2003, 08:42 AM

In the Reynolds case for example, I cannot come up with a believable mudane explanation considering the condition of her mind at the time of the observations. We seem to have to bring this up after every two or three pages of this discussion, but here it is again.

If the Pam Reynolds case is so remarkable, where is the coherent correlation of the events she supposedly witnessed while her EEG was essentially flat, and the testimony of anyone who was present, who can say unequivocally that those events did transpire at the same time?

We have heard respnses like, " Well, you will have to ask Dr. Spetzler.. ".

Why? Why are you here with this case Titus, if you have not already done your homework.. Why are we waiting for Dr. Sabom join in?
There is serious evidence for veridical perceptions during the stage of flat electroencephalogram (EEG) in so-called near-death experiences (NDEs). Where is this serious evidence?

See you in three pages...

Titus Rivas

19th August 2003, 09:05 AM

Well Diogenes,

It's people like yourself who want more details than are publicly available. I welcome them too, but as you know very well I'm already impressed by what I know of the case. That's precisely why I started the thread. I've never pretended antyhing else by the way.

By now, I believe I've done what I could, so maybe you could be a little more patient?

Titus

Diogenes

19th August 2003, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Well Diogenes,

It's people like yourself who want more details than are publicly available. I welcome them too, but as you know very well I'm already impressed by what I know of the case. That's precisely why I started the thread. I've never pretended antyhing else by the way.

By now, I believe I've done what I could, so maybe you could be a little more patient?

Titus

Darn! If only people like me, would stop asking for proof.:D

Titus Rivas

19th August 2003, 09:17 AM

As if she had read Diogenes's latest messages, Pam Reynolds just replied to me again a few minutes ago.

About specific details:

The color of the saw was gold. I'm on record-with this fact since 1991.

About normal sources of information:

the surgery was new and was certainly not publisised enough to warrent media coverage.

About the procedure on her arteries:

Yes, they did access my arteries post mortum. At the time. my eyes were taped shut and my ears were plugged.

About details in general:

These details,witnessed by scientists, still have me baffled.

Diogenes or anyone else, if you want to check any of this with Dr. Spetzler, please go ahead.

By the way, Pam once more turns out to be a reasonable person by closing her message with these words:

There is so much information and mis-information,to wade thru. Besides, we need those clinical minds to overturn every stone in search of the truth.

( by those clinical minds she is referring to skeptics). Just thought I shouldn't leave that out ;)

Titus

Diogenes

19th August 2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
As if she had read Diogenes's latest messages, Pam Reynolds just replied to me again a few minutes ago.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The color of the saw was gold. I'm on record-with this fact since 1991.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No reason not to believe her.. Just no way to know when or how she gathered this information..

About normal sources of information:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the surgery was new and was certainly not publisised enough to warrent media coverage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not necessarily true ( new procedure ). We discussed this with Steve G. earlier.. And what does it not being publicized, have to do with what was observed, at what time, in the operating room?

About the procedure on her arteries:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, they did access my arteries post mortum. At the time. my eyes were taped shut and my ears were plugged.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, irrelevant to the point being made, since it was established that the vascular access had to be made in order to start the cooling process..

About details in general:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These details,witnessed by scientists, still have me baffled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We can certainly agree she is baffled, as are the rest of us, with regard to the significance of this....

Diogenes or anyone else, if you want to check any of this with Dr. Spetzler, please go ahead.

By the way, Pam once more turns out to be a reasonable person by closing her message with these words:

( by those clinical minds she is referring to skeptics). Just thought I shouldn't leave that out ;)

I have no reason to believe she is not a reasonable person, which has no bearing on the discussion at hand..

Titus

You know, we have to keep posting the same responses to the same assertions...

Still, no corroboration that any of these things happened only while she was flat-lined, or were not events that she could not have learned of earlier, later, consciously, or otherwise. ( And, I'm not suggesting that Pam or anyone is deliberately being deceptive either. .. )

And again, regarding Dr. Spetzler. Why should anyone else, care to annoy him, in order to do your homework.

We are just rehashing earlier discussion.. Makes it rather easy, actually..

Titus Rivas

19th August 2003, 10:19 AM

And again, regarding Dr. Spetzler. Why should anyone else, care to annoy him, in order to do your homework.

Quite simple, Diogenes, because you're among the persons who aren't satisfied by his general declaration, which I have published on this forum. I can do only so much. I personally don't want to annoy him (an outstanding, very occupied brainsurgeon) by specific questions he's already generally answered. Unless Pam would be very confused about her NDE, we simply have no good reason to doubt that she did witness the details mentioned by her during her flat EEG. It's wonderful if we get to know in even more detail what events these were exactly. But, unless you discount Dr. Spetzler's testimony as worthless, more details aren't necessary to be certain already that there is more to this case than can be explained normally. And if you discount his testimony anyway, why bother asking him for more details :D ?

Titus

Titus Rivas

19th August 2003, 10:23 AM

And what does it not being publicized, have to do with what was observed, at what time, in the operating room

This seems quite obvious, doesn't it?
If it had been a normal procedure, information about it would have been available anywhere. As it was a new procedure, the cryptomnesia-hypothesis a priori becomes a lot weaker.

Titus

Titus Rivas

19th August 2003, 10:27 AM

Again, irrelevant to the point being made, since it was established that the vascular access had to be made in order to start the cooling process..

I must have missed that. I understood this was only one interpretation of the medical procedure. The kind of point we would want a medical specialist to give his informed opinion about.

Titus

Diogenes

19th August 2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Titus Rivas

...... we simply have no good reason to doubt ....

Titus

Says you..:)

You do understand, that I probably would have never been aware of Pam reynolds, unless you had brought her to my attention.

My saying that you have done nothing to convince me, or even make me suspicious that there is anything special ( paranormal, if you will ...), about her experience might make you question what you hope to accomplish here...

You certainly do not have to justify your purpose for my sake, but I have enjoyed the conversation and the exercise..

I have been extremely fascinated by the details I have gathered, regarding the surgical procedure she went through, and the incredible skill and medical daring of the medical personel involved in this, and have no doubts about the possibilities of human achievements in the future if we manage not to extinguish ourselves.
And in this regard I say: " Wow ! " Not " Woo Woo ! "

Diogenes

19th August 2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Titus Rivas

I must have missed that. I understood this was only one interpretation of the medical procedure. The kind of point we would want a medical specialist to give his informed opinion about.

Titus

You missed it? You might want to re-read page six..

Again, it would seem that the technical details you demand from others, are not relevant when they conflict with the conclusions you have arrived at.

If Pam indeed, underwent hypothermic cardiac arrest, then her blood would have been diverted from her heart before it was stopped.. ie.. Before she was flat-lined..

If she underwent some other procedure, such as open-heart surgery, perhaps you could enlighten us..?? Did Pam miss this part of her surgery while disembodied?

Titus Rivas

19th August 2003, 11:19 AM

Again, it would seem that the technical details you demand from others, are not relevant when they conflict with the conclusions you have arrived at.

I never asked you about technical details neither you nor myself are experts on. I just assumed and continue to assume that we shouldn't jump to skeptical conclusions about those details, unless we are very knowledgeable about the topic in question. If we aren't, we have no particular reason to doubt either Pam or Dr. Spetzler.

Titus

Diogenes

19th August 2003, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Titus Rivas

I never asked you about technical details neither you nor myself are experts on. I just assumed and continue to assume that we shouldn't jump to skeptical conclusions about those details, unless we are very knowledgeable about the topic in question. If we aren't, we have no particular reason to doubt either Pam or Dr. Spetzler.

Titus

You keep insisting the procedure involving her groin was limited to the time she was flat-lined.. You, apparently, are assuming this..

But we can't assume otherwise, based on informed research?

Titus Rivas

19th August 2003, 11:41 AM

You keep insisting the procedure involving her groin was limited to the time she was flat-lined.. You, apparently, are assuming this..

Of course you can. You can assume anything you like. What I'm really insisting on is that we shouldn't jump to that assumption. I don't claim to know what the procedure was like, but just assume that Pam is right about it. Perhaps I'm wrong on this point (maybe because I did not understand what Pam really meant by this point), but I would need to have a good or rather conclusive reason to think that I am. Just jumping to skeptical conclusions won't do for me you see.

Titus

Dragon

19th August 2003, 12:32 PM

Stories, that's all we really have here isn't it?
However impeccable the source, however vivid the experience, however honest the experiencer they are still just stories.
Interesting? Certainly. Challenging? Sometimes.
Still stories though.

As someone once said on this forum, "The plural of anecdote is not data"

Diogenes

19th August 2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Titus Rivas

I don't claim to know what the procedure was like, but just assume that Pam is right about it.

Titus

Aside from the point that you haven't provided us with Pam's description of any procedure.. Only :

" I saw them operating on my groin while the body was dead .."

This doesn't seem to jive with:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been in touch through e-mail with the brain surgeon in question who referred me to the account given of the case in Michael B. Sabom's book Light and Death, adding that Pam's account was 'remarkably accurate'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What part of Pam's account ( as told to you by the surgeon) is a 'remarkably accurate' description of something that transpired while she was brain-dead, that she could not have possibly aquired pre or post op?

If this question sounds familiar, it's because I asked it on page five.

So what is it: 'remarkably accurate' , or just vague recollections such as:

quote:...( by Pam )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I saw them operating on my groin while the body was dead and was concerned. I couldn't understand why.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"The saw-thing that I hated the sound of looked like an electric toothbrush and it had a dent in it, a groove at the top where the saw appeared to go into the handle, but it didn't ... And the saw had interchangeable blades, too, but these blades were in what looked like a socket wrench case ... I heard the saw crank up. I didn't see them use it on my head, but I think I heard it being used on something. It was humming at a relatively high pitch and then all of a sudden it went Brrrrrrrrr! like that.

I find it interesting that she saw and heard the saw, but that : " I didn't see them use it on my head "..
And all this, while she was ".... the most aware that I think that I have ever been in my entire life .."
And....
" It was not like normal vision. It was brighter and more focused and clearer than normal vision ...

It just doesn't click Titus..

Either she gave a clear and accurate description of what happened while she was flat-lined, or she is relating her perception of any number of vague and ill defined events that occured throughout her ordeal.. of course she could have done both, but so far, we have no evidence of the former..

Jagger

19th August 2003, 01:56 PM

Diogenes, use your imagination and pretend you are Pam about to undergo this operation.

You are fully conscious and thinking. Then you are put under anesthia and go unconscious. Everything goes black as you go to sleep.

You have tape over your eyes and plugs in your ears.

Then your body temperature is lowered to 60 degrees. Then your heart and breathing are stopped. Your brain ceases to function with a flat EEG. With a flat EEG, even dreaming would be detected. No EEG, no dreams, no memories. Just blackness.

Then the blood is drained from your head.

They start sawing into your head. {Reynolds observations}

The operation occurs over many hours and your aneurysm is repaired.

Finally they pump the blood back into your head, they raise your temperature back up, your heart restarts, your breathing returns and your EEG unflattens.

Hours later, you wake up.

Now tell me what you would be able to describe about the operation when you wake up. Would you remember anything at all? Anything at all??? Anything????????

Then consider what Pam Reynolds was able to remember and accurately describe about the operation.

See the disconnect between what you could describe and what Pam Reynolds was able to describe.

Hopefully this may help you understand why people are so baffled by the case. It should be impossible but investigation shows she was able to accurately describe events and activities from her operation. And this same type of out of body observation is typical of many, many NDE experiences.

Diogenes

19th August 2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Jagger
Diogenes, use your imagination and pretend you are Pam about to undergo this operation.

What you said.... And

Then consider what Pam Reynolds was able to remember and accurately describe about the operation.

See the disconnect between what you could describe and what Pam Reynolds was able to describe.

Thanks for taking the time..

Just how long do you suppose Pam had a flat EEG ? ( I suspect a pretty precise number is on record somewhere, for anyone who is really interested. I'm really surprised that someone ( Pam, perhaps ), who underwent such a procedure, would not posess this information,,

Have you read through this entire thread ? My last post ?

I have no information that Pam described anything that was detailed ( about activity in the operating room ) or remarkable, and certainly not tied uniquely to the time frame during which brain activity was not detected..

Do you possess such information? Can you share it with us ?

Titus Rivas

19th August 2003, 02:55 PM

Diogenes,

Let's both stop repeating the same arguments. It will be clear by now where each of us stands.

Jagger,

I completely agree with your latest contribution.

Titus

Jagger

19th August 2003, 03:05 PM

The EEG goes flat within 6-10 seconds after the heart stops.

The EEG will remain flat until blood flow returns.

I am assuming the heart stopped due to the lowering of her body temperature.

Reynolds observations began with the use of the saw. I am unaware of any use of a saw except to open the head. The head would not be opened until after the heart stopped. So she had a flat EEG. And her observations coincide with the use of the saw. Use of the saw occured after her heart stopped and before it was restarted.

"The saw-thing that I hated the sound of looked like an electric toothbrush and it had a dent in it, a groove at the top where the saw appeared to go into the handle, but it didn't ... And the saw had interchangeable blades, too, but these blades were in what looked like a socket wrench case ... I heard the saw crank up. I didn't see them use it on my head, but I think I heard it being used on something. It was humming at a relatively high pitch and then all of a sudden it went Brrrrrrrrr! like that.

This information described by Reynolds seems fairly detailed to me.

It seems remarkable as well considering her flat EEG and her out of body perspective. Not to mention the accuracy.

Titus Rivas

19th August 2003, 03:19 PM

It seems there is one (in itself minor) error on one of the main online sources about the case of Pam Reynolds; Pam Reynolds- Visions and memories occur while brain dead (http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html) , where it states:

Pam was participating in an Atlanta near-death study by Dr. Sabom at the time of her standstill operation.

Some readers may have thought because of this passage that Pam was instructed about the study before her operation and that this may have influenced her NDE.

However, strangely enough, the very same site has a link to a page about Michael Sabom's Research (http://www.near-death.com/experiences/experts07.html) which mentions the Atlanta study as something which was founded three years after Pam's experience (in 1991):

In 1994, he founded the Atlanta Study which is the first comprehensive investigation of its kind into NDEs.

By the way, this year is confirmed by all other sources on the internet. For example, Victor Zammit (http://www.victorzammit.com/hall/) writes about Dr. Sabom:

In 1994, he founded the Atlanta Study which is the first comprehensive investigation of its kind into NDEs.

All this accords well with Pam's own declarations and goes against the skeptical conclusion that the study would have influenced her NDE.

Titus

Diogenes

19th August 2003, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Titus Rivas

.............................

All this accords well with Pam's own declarations and goes against the skeptical conclusion that the study would have influenced her NDE.

Titus

I'm relieved.. This was a conclusion I hadn't come to.

You may be surprised to hear that the only conclusion I have reached, is that there is not enough information to arrive at one.

Titus Rivas

19th August 2003, 03:37 PM

Diogenes,

You may be surprised to hear that the only conclusion I have reached, is that there is not enough information to arrive at one.

Though I've really enjoyed (most of) your contributions, you may be surprised to read that you're not the only skeptic who's following this thread. ;)

Titus

Diogenes

19th August 2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Jagger
The EEG goes flat within 6-10 seconds after the heart stops.

The EEG will remain flat until blood flow returns.

I am assuming the heart stopped due to the lowering of her body temperature.

Reynolds observations began with the use of the saw. I am unaware of any use of a saw except to open the head. The head would not be opened until after the heart stopped. So she had a flat EEG. And her observations coincide with the use of the saw. Use of the saw occured after her heart stopped and before it was restarted.

This information described by Reynolds seems fairly detailed to me.

It seems remarkable as well considering her flat EEG and her out of body perspective. Not to mention the accuracy.

Your post does not seem to indicate you are familiar with Hypothermic Circulatory Arrest (http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/nsg/NSGCPMC/articles/1998hyp.html) ..

It is also news to me that an EEG is an indication of heart activity. Of course, in the absence of a beating heart, and no back-up circulatory process in place, the brain will cease to function. I would want to verify the ten second figure though. It seems a bit short.
However, one of the facts we do have, is that Pam was on a heart-lung machine, so stopping her heart did not result in the stopping of blood flow to her brain.

lekatt

19th August 2003, 03:51 PM

Titus

You are indeed a patient person.

At some point the skeptics will get around to reading the NDE material from the many researchers and the accounts. From this they will understand that life continues after death. That there is a spiritual world waiting for them when they die. That logic does not produce knowledge, and there are many things to be learned about this world.

Love

SteveGrenard

19th August 2003, 03:56 PM

Jagger

19th August 2003, 03:57 PM

It is also news to me that an EEG is an indication of heart activity.

Sorry Diogenes, I should have connected all the dots. When cardiac arrest is experienced, the lack of blood flow causes the brain to flatline within 6-10 seconds. The EEG has nothing to do with heart activity.

And I think I will go the Titus route. It is not a wise use of time for you and I to discuss the Reynolds case.

Titus Rivas

19th August 2003, 04:14 PM

For the last time THE procedure on her groin was to insert a line into the femoral artery, snake it into the lower part of the aorta and use that as the departure conduit (arterial outflow tract) to hook her up to the heart/lung machine which we now know she was on the whole time. Ergo, and there cannot be any dispute about this nor can anyone make any assumptions either way, she was not yet on the heart/lung machine when this procedure was performed. This is routine, S.O.P. and there can be no disputing this. Thank you.

Secondly when she woke up she had a nasty stitched up hole in the groin over the femoral artery and she would've been aware of this as well.

Well, I certainly hope you haven't taken my doubts too personally :cool:

Anyway, even if you're (indisputably) right about this, the point remains whether her EEG would have been (nearly) flat during the procedure or not. Pam Reynolds, at least as I have understood her thus far, claims that it was. Could there be a reconciliation between your account and this Near-Death state she claims she was in at the time?

Please let's forget about the distorted memory (stitches) theory, by the way. Some things are too hard to swallow even for a non-debunker like myself ;)

Titus