Pam Reynolds Near-Death Experience

[Gerald]

Understanding the true nature of the Near Death Experience will always be shrouded in mystery until people learn the difference between the brain that records information and the Mind that flows through us.

The brain is merely a storehouse of recorded electrical patterns that we call memories. The brain cannot know nor think anything because those functions are governed by Mind that is totally seperate from the brain. Mind flows THROUGH us.

Pam Reynolds experienced what will happen to all who eventually die. The only difference with Pam was that she was allowed to come back. Now compare the Near Death Experience with that of illumination. There have only be but a few people in recorded history who have experienced illumination and in the severe cases, their Minds are severed from the body for a certain length of time. They will view their bodies from afar instead of from within. During the illumination they think and know much more and with a greater intensity than before the illumination took place and since they are OUTSIDE of their bodies, this does not include the brain. The brain is an instrument that MIND uses.

There was once a man who endured an illumination for thirty-nine days and nights. During the event, he was totally seperated from his body and viewed it from afar. When his body was hungry, it ate. When it wanted excercise, it would go for a walk. But the entire time it was controlled by instinct. During this severance period he could travel from room to room and observe his family sleeping but he in spirit, would never tire.

Albert Einstein desired illumination and felt he would only learn the true mechanics of the universe if allowed to experience illumination. He was correct in thinking this but he never acheived illumination and is also why some of his theories were only half right. But he was intelligent enough to know that illuminations do exist.

Long story short: Brain is not Mind. Mind flows through the brain but is not part of the brain. The brain is a warehouse for electrical memory patterns, which is information not knowledge. Actual knowledge is a function of MIND not the brain.

[Diogenes]

Now, I understand...

I wonder Titus, if you now feel kinda like, one bunch of Christians, trying to convince us that the other bunch of Christians has it all wrong? Or most of it, anyway..;)

[Phil]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Now, I understand...

I wonder Titus if you now feel kinda like, one bunch of Christians, trying to convince us that the other bunch of Christians has it all wrong?;)
Yes! You are "illuminated"!

I wouldn't mind being illuminated. I'm just afraid I'd look at my body from afar and be horrified at how big my ass is.

[Titus Rivas]

Welcome to this thread, Gerald. I basically agree with your view on mind-body relations.

Nope, Diogenes, your comparison between a schismatic religious dispute and a rational scholarly discussion is not very illuminating I'm afraid.

By the way, Phil, I would strongly advice you to stay away from people who might want to apply the trick with the two mirrors used at the barber shop to lower parts of your back. Apart from shameless photographers or camera men that is.


Titus

[Jagger]

Higher dimensions? I'm know that some theories predict additional dimensions, but I've never heard any suggestion that these dimensions should be "higher" in any way, or that beings in these dimensions should be able to observe us without us observing them . As far as I remember from “A Brief History of Time" these additional dimensions are curled up very small, which is the reason we don't see them, but are otherwise identical to "normal" dimensions.

Kerebolos, by higher dimensions, I mean any dimensions beyond the 3 physical dimensions within our existence. For example, one of the string theories uses 11 dimensions. If there are 11 dimensions, we could only perceive 3 of those 11 physical dimensions. That leaves 8 dimensions inaccessible to direct perception by our 3 dimensional mind. This also leaves open the possibility of 4d, 5d, 6d, 7d, 8d, 9d, 10d and 11 dimensional minds. Not to say they exist but the possibility is there. And of course, the alternative 26 dimensional theory offers up additional possibilites.

Humans, with our 3d minds, would not be able to perceive anything existing partially or fully in higher dimensions except possibly indirectly. However anything with a 4d or higher mind would be able to perceive the 3d world if these higher dimensions intersected with our 3 dimensions.

If you haven't read Flatlanders or Kiku's Hyperspace, both books go into the ramifications of higher dimensions. Hyperspace is particularly interesting if you have any interest in dimensions.

Hawkings does write of these higher dimensions as compactified. However I interpreted his useage of compactified as a convenience rather than a necessity. Although we wouldn't know if a compactified size makes a difference or not in regards to higher dimensions as a place of existence.

I have read that these higher dimensions could be confirmed by certain types of testing for indirect influences within our universe. I am unaware of any tests that have been conducted.

[Jagger]

Here is another thought about Reprise question on where are NDE'rs during their experience. Again here is a quote from an NDE'r interview within Moodys first book.

"People were walking up from all directions to get to the wreck. I could see them, and I was in the middle of a very narrow walkway. Anyway, as they came by they wouldn't seem to notice me. They would keep walking with their eyes straight ahead. As they came real close, I would try to turn around, to get out of their way, but they would walk THROUGH ME".

Here is another common experience within NDE accounts. They cannot interact with matter. Matter no longer is solid within the NDE experience. If NDE accounts are reality, then this phenomenon gives us some hints as to location.

The form of existence does not interact with matter which means they are immune to the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces of matter. The floating reported in many NDE's indicates they are not subject to the gravity force.

Several possible explanations exist. One is they are entirely outside of our spacetime such that our 3d matter field forces are absent-back to the lack of spacetime at speed of light or possibly blackholes. Or two, they are in a separate higher dimensional spacetime with their own set of field forces thus independent of our field forces. Or three, they are within our spacetime but composed of an unknown substance not subject to known field forces.

Yet they are exposed to at least one force. The pulling of the NDE'r into the tunnel is irresistible. It is as if they are pulled by a magnet or gravity. So they are subject to some type of force. We can only speculate whether this force is inside or outside of spacetime. Considering the comments on the lack of time, space and interaction with matter, I would suspect this force would also be outside of spacetime.

If the NDE'r experience is real, I suspect they are inhabiting some region outside of any spacetime or possibly higher dimensions with totally different qualities of spacetime when they are viewing our spacetime. The unusual qualities of sight suggests higher dimensions prior to entry in the tunnel.

However with the huge emphasis on light and "returning to the light" of NDE'rs as they go through the tunnel, I would lean towards the final distination as the region at the speed of light- as that is where light exists without time or space.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Jagger
...snip....

However with the huge emphasis on light and "returning to the light" of NDE'rs as they go through the tunnel, I would lean towards the final distination as the region at the speed of light- as that is where light exists without time or space.

Two questions:

What are "higher dimensions"?

How do account that this "experience" is then communicated back to the land of matter?

[juninho]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I disagree. Indeed I would maintain the precise converse. Namely *nothing* about my essential self (or soul) can be affected by changes in my brain. Only my states of mind changes ie my moods, intelligence etc. You think there is nothing in abstraction from ones moods, intelligence and so on. I already have made it clear I completely disagree


Surely, Ian, you are contradiciting yourself here. In one hand you are stating that your "essential self" can be affected by changes to the brain but on the other hand you accept that your "mind" can be affected by changes to the brain. What is the difference between the two?

Anyway, you are talking bollocks, as people who have brain trauma do change their "essential self". Explain that away.


. Otherwise I wouldn't literally be the same person now as when I was 7 years old, since ostensibly there is little, if anything, in common with my 7 year old self. Do you really find it plausible that you literally are not the same person as your 7 year old self? If so then so much for your 7 year old self's speculations of what your grown up self will be like. After all your 7 year old self has ceased to be as effectively as if you had died in the intervening period between your 7 year old self and your present self.



Of course you're not the same person from the person you were when you were seven. Why you try to attach some relevance to this is beyond me. Please explain your dippy logic behind this.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by juninho
[B]

Surely, Ian, you are contradiciting yourself here. In one hand you are stating that your "essential self" can be affected by changes to the brain



Absolutely not. I have not stated this anywhere.



Anyway, you are talking bollocks, as people who have brain trauma do change their "essential self". Explain that away.



Have they confirmed this?



Of course you're not the same person from the person you were when you were seven.

So when did you come into being then?

[Titus Rivas]

Try this formulation:

The self is the subject which undergoes all the conscious experiences. Now, those conscious experiences change continuously, whereas it is the same subject who undergoes them. It is not itself a conscious experience, so changes within consciousness or more generally the mind don't equal changes of the subject qua subject. Meaning that if your mind changes you don't become a different subject (person), you don't become someone else. Actually, it is an absurdity to state that anyone can become someone else in this sense (another subject).

Even for a single conscious experience we need to postulate that the subject remains identical to itself while the mind changes. If we don't, we can't explain how a subject can experience anything, as experiences always presuppose change (processes).

The relationship between the self and its mind has traditionally been described as the relationship between an essential substance and its existence. So somebody's existence or mind has changed a lot since he was seven years old, but he is still the same subject as he was then. You can compare this to the relation between matter (taken as a real entity) and physical processes: though matter continuously changes, it is still the same matter (and not another matter suddenly created ex nihilo every time there is change).

The subject cannot be explained away, as it is the logical precondition for any subjectivity. Wherever there is consciousness there must be a subject of that consciousness.

Even an important philosopher skeptical of parapsychology such as Sir Karl Popper acknowledged the existence of a self, though he called it a semi-substance as in his view the non-physical self emerges from the brain (emergent dualism).

Titus

[juninho]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
[B]

EThe relationship between the self and its mind has traditionally been described as the relationship between an essential substance and its existence. So somebody's existence or mind has changed a lot since he was seven years old, but he is still the same subject as he was then. You can compare this to the relation between matter (taken as a real entity) and physical processes: though matter continuously changes, it is still the same matter (and not another matter suddenly created ex nihilo every time there is change).



OK, rationally explain what you mean by a "subject" or are you just talking irrational philosophical clap-trap.


The subject cannot be explained away, as it is the logical precondition for any subjectivity. Wherever there is consciousness there must be a subject of that consciousness.


Do what? And no, I'm not being dim, this is pure bollocks.


Even an important philosopher skeptical of parapsychology such as Sir Karl Popper acknowledged the existence of a self, though he called it a semi-substance as in his view the non-physical self emerges from the brain (emergent dualism).


And that proves what exactly?

[juninho]

i

[Quasi]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Try this formulation:

Even an important philosopher skeptical of parapsychology such as Sir Karl Popper acknowledged the existence of a self, though he called it a semi-substance as in his view the non-physical self emerges from the brain (emergent dualism).

Titus

One of the main issues KP solved was the problem of self- you experience something and it changes you, how to control for bias, wishful thinking etcetera. His other main point was regarding circular arguments and how they have no value whatsoever. In other words, there is no dualism. The self is an ever changing thing which reflects the plasticity of the mind. Take the brain away and you are dead. The explanations of NDE's match my own experience, and I believe they are far more accurate than the ludicrous philosophical implications that go along with a religious/spiritual theory. If you accept the heaven/God explanation you must believe all other religions are invalid, and that they are wrong/evil. I disagree- there is a mundane explanation that is repeatable and accurate.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by juninho
[Originally posted by Titus Rivas
[B]

EThe relationship between the self and its mind has traditionally been described as the relationship between an essential substance and its existence. So somebody's existence or mind has changed a lot since he was seven years old, but he is still the same subject as he was then. You can compare this to the relation between matter (taken as a real entity) and physical processes: though matter continuously changes, it is still the same matter (and not another matter suddenly created ex nihilo every time there is change).


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


Juninho
OK, rationally explain what you mean by a "subject" or are you just talking irrational philosophical clap-trap.



I guess he means the self or person.



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

The subject cannot be explained away, as it is the logical precondition for any subjectivity. Wherever there is consciousness there must be a subject of that consciousness.

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



Do what? And no, I'm not being dim, this is pure bollocks.



So you don't think that experiences are had by an experiencer?

[Titus Rivas]

juninho said:

rationally explain what you mean by a "subject" or are you just talking irrational philosophical clap-trap.

Ian said: I guess he means the self or person.

Right, by subject I mean the entity or person who experiences any kind of conscious experience. For example: if a person experiences pain, the subject is the person who experiences pain. Or if an animal experiences pain, the subject is the animal who experiences pain.
So it shouldn't be mistaken for a so called over-self which is quite popular nowadays in certain circles. It's the self which undergoes all experiences, including the most mundane kinds.

Titus

[Gerald]

Thanks for the "Welcome" Titus Rivas. (I just now noticed what you wrote, sorry).

[Gerald]

Jagger wrote:

"Matter no longer is solid within the NDE experience. If NDE accounts are reality"....<snip>

You have to understand a little known fact about matter to get past the idea of "matter" being a "reality" and solid. Every state of matter passes through its own particular cycle. Imagine an ice cube and how it appears as a hard solid. Apply heat to it, and we know it melts and becomes softer. Heat it even further and it will vaporize into invisibility. That ice cube went from being a visible hard state of matter, to an invisible soft state of matter [vapors].
The invisible vapors of water that you can no longer sense or see is just as real as it was in its frozen ice cube state.

When we hold that solid ice cube, we feel its weight and hardness and this helps to create the idea of the ice cube being a "reality". But when that ice is superheated into vapors that divide into invisibility beyond our sensing range, doesn't that "ice cube" still exist? Afterall, both the ice cube and the vapors were both composed of the same water.

The reason why I wrote the above, is because everything is expressed in electrical cycles that compress for a short while to become solids and then expands for a short while to become gases or vapors. When matter is compressed into hardness, it then comes within the range of our senses and we "believe" in its "reality". When that same state of matter is then expanded, it loses its hardness and the idea of it being a "solid". But...it still exists even though it is then out of the range of our senses.

Matter is not what we think it to be. It is something else.

"If the NDE'r experience is real".....<snip>

The people who experience NDE's are experiencing the REALITY and the CAUSE of our physical universe of matter or substance.
Our physical universe of matter or substance is the UNREALITY and the effect. This is a light-wave cosmic cinema.

"However with the huge emphasis on light"....<snip>

One of the most important reasons why so many people who mention the "Light" after a NDE, is because all things are Light.
During the NDE they are transported into the CAUSE behind our physical universe which is the EFFECT. Those who really experience an NDE will always return and mention the Light.

Matter is nothing more than waves of dual lights that are electrically conditioned to give the appearance of matter or substance. And all matter can be compressed or expanded to completely alter its appearance. To think that matter is "real" because it is hard, dense and has weight and appears solid is useless thinking. A bar of iron might impress us with being hard and solid and we would not think about hitting it with our hand without causing injury. But heat that iron up, beyond its melting point into its expanded liquid state and you could stick your little finger through it. That expanded bar of heated-liquified iron would lose all properties of what our idea of iron should be, but it would still be iron.

To prove my point, if I melted gold to its liquid state, making it appear very different from the usual concept of what gold is [a bar of gold], would you not want it? Sure you would. It is still gold.

If you understand what I have just wrote concerning matter being expressed in two different ways-directions, think about this:

You are walking in a forest by yourself and suddenly, you die. You are miles from anyone and no one knows where you are. What will happen to you as you are left to the elements? Your once compressed body that everyone used to see, will decompose [expand] into invisibility, as did the heated ice cube. But YOU still exist just as much as that vaporized ice cube does. You are merely living FOR A SHORT WHILE in the expanded half of your electrical life cycle that no one can visibly see. You are then beyond their very limited sensing range.

Sorry for the long post.

[reprise]

Gerald, if your assertions about disembodied consciousness are correct - ie, that it is attached to physical form for only a short time - then perhaps you'd like to explain to us how that disembodied consciousness is created.

How was the "essential" you created?

[Gerald]

reprise wrote:

"Gerald, if your assertions about disembodied consciousness are correct - ie, that it is attached to physical form for only a short time - then perhaps you'd like to explain to us how that disembodied consciousness is created".

"How was the "essential" you created"?

Reply:

I am not sure what you are asking when you write, "How was the "essential" you created"? Maybe the way it is worded is throwing me. I'll try to answer the complete post the best I can and maybe that will be the answer you are looking for.

If you backtrack everything that you do during the day, you will find that all of your physical actions begin with an invisible thought or idea. For instance, suppose you are thirsty and want a glass of water. You must first become aware of the invisible thought or idea to have a glass of water BEFORE you PHYSICALLY perform the task of filling a glass of water to drink. All of our actions in this world are VISIBLE PHYSICAL actions that come AFTER the INVISIBLE MENTALLY concieved idea or thought. [I'm not trying to scream with the caps but just noting the importance of the words].

The physical world that we have is everchanging and fleeting. Matter or substance is "locked" in never ending cycles that compress into view and then expand out of view. All matter is transitory in nature. A newspaper that we might pay to read today, is garbage tomorrow. Then...the cycle begins again. There is not one state of matter that does not conform to this transitory principle.

The "essential" that you write of is the invisible mental idea or thought that always controls the visible physical matter around us. There is not one state of matter that can move on its own. Only MIND can move matter. This is as true of everything that you do in your own personal life from moment-to-moment, to the trees outside swaying in the breeze. Matter is not what we think it to be.

I wish I had the room here to fully describe the "essential" that you write of. I will try to touch upon it as briefly as possible here.

Everything around us is a constant interplay between the physical and the mental. Physical matter is everchanging but the mental universe that controls the physical, is always the same. It never changes and it is the Universal Constant. When discussing physical matter, we can use many different names. A bar of iron, a tree, a house, an apple, etc. When discussing the MENTAL, we can also use many names that all mean the same thing. Mental, Mind, Spirit, Consciousness and others. The Mind always controls the physical because properites of the Mind are eternal.

We place too much an importance on the physical, but that is normal. Suppose you were a musician who desired to write a great song that would make you millions of dollars. One day, you conceive in your Mind the very song that will do this. You write the song to sheet music to not lose it. Then, you play it on instruments and record the song to tape. But tragity strikes. Your house burns down destroying the sheet music, the recorded tape and yourself. Is the song gone? No! The invisible idea that you first conceived lives on. THAT INVISIBLE IDEA for the song is not physical matter that you can see, but an invisible idea of MIND that cannot be destoryed. The written sheet music and tape recording that you made were IMITATIONS of your INVISIBLE ETERNAL IDEA. The only reason why physical matter exists is because it gives us a way to EXPRESS our invisible Mind thoughts.

If you understand the above idea then you understand that your physical body is not the REAL you. It is a physical body that is slave to your thinking MIND controlling it, which is the REAL YOU. When you "die" only the body that was extended to you ceases to move and express itself. The real you, which is Mind, spirit, consciousness, etc., still exists. It has merely been electrically disconnected from the body that it once used to express its mental thoughts with.

Sorry again for the long post. (examples require this).

[Titus Rivas]

The Dutch zetetic skeptic Rudolf H. Smit -himself an author of a recent article about the case of Pam Reynolds, in the Dutch journal Terugkeer of Merkawah (http://www.merkawah.nl/)- has kindly sent me some comments by Dr. Pim van Lommel (http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm) about the case of Pam Reynolds after I'd alerted him to this thread. Here's what he says (i.e. a translation of the main passages of his message in Dutch):

I have a copy of the book by Michael Sabom with the description of the case of Pam Reynolds, and also a print of her story from her website.
It is the correct that her Out-of-the-Body Experience took place, before she was connected to the heart-lung machine, because she heard the comment of the vascular surgeon, who looked for the necessary artery and vein from the groin, and who found that they were too small.
But I think that they had allready started cooling down her body temperature, because this is a slow process. And she was already deeply narcotized. Also the fact that she saw the instrument, that was used to open her skull, implies that the factual brain surgery had not started yet at that moment in time. However, this does not affect the fact that she did experience the rest of her Out-of-the-Body Experience during the flatline EEG, because she only returned in her (cold!) body during the defibrillation at the end of the surgical procedure used to get her heart going again.

Titus

[Dragon]

Hmm, this interests me - ...However, this does not affect the fact that she did experience the rest of her Out-of-the-Body Experience during the flatline EEG, because she only returned in her (cold!) body during the defibrillation at the end of the surgical procedure used to get her heart going again.

Two things - how do we know for sure that she experienced part of her OBE when "flatlined"?
And isn't van Lommel making an assumption about a separate consciousness/soul when he says "returned in her (cold!) body"?

[Titus Rivas]

Dragon said:

Two things - how do we know for sure that she experienced part of her OBE when "flatlined"? And isn't van Lommel making an assumption about a separate consciousness/soul when he says "returned in her (cold!) body"?

We know it as a very plausible interpretation of her experience. She had a NDE before she flatlined and she experienced that her NDE continued after she flatlined. So that it is only reasonable to suppose that the NDE partially occurred
during her flat EEG.
And no, Pim van Lommel isn't making an assumption but just uses the non-materialist jargon with is compatible with his (and my) world view. In his case, the world view is primarily deduced from his interpretation of NDEs rather than the other way round.

Titus

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
....
So that it is only reasonable to suppose that the NDE partially occurred
during her flat EEG.

Titus

No, it's not... Unless you want to count the part where nothing happened...

[Titus Rivas]

Diogenes:
Unless you want to count the part where nothing happened...

Well, what part are you talking about?
Pam reports having experienced events in another world. That doesn't add up to "nothing".

Titus

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Diogenes:


Well, what part are you talking about?
Pam reports having experienced events in another world. That doesn't add up to "nothing".

Titus

What reason/s do we have to believe those events took place while she was flat-lined?

[Titus Rivas]

What reason/s do we have to believe those events took place while she was flat-lined?

The simplest reason is of course that she experienced these events after the physical events that occurred shortly before she got flatlined, and before her EEG was activated again.

Titus

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas


The simplest reason is of course that she experienced these events after the physical events that occurred shortly before she got flatlined and before her EEG was activated again.

Titus

How do you know she experienced them before her EEG was activated again?

[Phil]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
We know it as a very plausible interpretation of her experience. She had a NDE before she flatlined and she experienced that her NDE continued after she flatlined. So that it is only reasonable to suppose that the NDE partially occurred
during her flat EEG. . .

Titus
Her NDE began before she was flatlined? Is that the gist of this? Am I just being dense (something not beyond me by the way), or wasn't the claim that her NDE happened after all heart and brain activity was ceased completely supposed to be the unique aspect of this case?

If her NDE began before she was flatlined, doesn't that lend support to all the known physiological phenomena for these experiences that we've posted all along? And with this in mind, if the claim is now that her NDE ran long, overlapping into the after-flatline timeframe, like Monday Night Football cutting into the local news, doesn't the question that Diogenese asked: "How do you know she experienced them before her EEG was activated again?" seem even more difficult to answer with anything other than "We don't."?

[juninho]

Originally posted by Phil

Her NDE began before she was flatlined? Is that the gist of this? Am I just being dense (something not beyond me by the way), or wasn't the claim that her NDE happened after all heart and brain activity was ceased completely supposed to be the unique aspect of this case?


Does it matter if she flatlined? She was not brain-dead before or during flatlining. If the brain was dead she would have come out of surgery a vegetable, therefore there was still brain activity as far as I see it.

Furthermore, she was having BRAIN SURGERY, do you not think that someone poking about in your cranium might produce some strange experiences?

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by juninho


Does it matter if she flatlined? She was not brain-dead before or during flatlining. If the brain was dead she would have come out of surgery a vegetable, therefore there was still brain activity as far as I see it.

It matters, if someone is trying to demonstrate that recalled events took place during that time.. ( hint.. It is not Phil who is suggesting this...)

Furthermore, she was having BRAIN SURGERY, do you not think that someone poking about in your cranium might produce some strange experiences?

I can't find any suggestion in this thread, that there is anyone here, who would disagree with you regarding this..

[Titus Rivas]

Her NDE began before she was flatlined? Is that the gist of this? Am I just being dense (something not beyond me by the way), or wasn't the claim that her NDE happened after all heart and brain activity was ceased completely supposed to be the unique aspect of this case? If her NDE began before she was flatlined, doesn't that lend support to all the known physiological phenomena for these experiences that we've posted all along? And with this in mind, if the claim is now that her NDE ran long, overlapping into the after-flatline timeframe, like Monday Night Football cutting into the local news, doesn't the question that Diogenese asked: "How do you know she experienced them before her EEG was activated again?" seem even more difficult to answer with anything other than "We don't."? Well, Phil, if you reread this thread, you'll see that we found out her NDE began before she got flatlined, but that it probably contained paranormal elements. My way of reasoning is as follows: if we accept the paranormal impressions of the surgery, we need a parapsychological hypothesis. And then, it becomes simply more parsimonious to consider the rest of her NDE as continuous with the paranormal part.
We can't be 100% certain, but it certainly seems to be a whole lot more rational than still trying to explain everything away by trivial normal processes.

Titus

[Titus Rivas]

Juninho said:

Does it matter if she flatlined? She was not brain-dead before or during flatlining. If the brain was dead she would have come out of surgery a vegetable, therefore there was still brain activity as far as I see it.

Well, Juninho, the main question in this field is not whether the brain is dead. The question is whether the brain activity is sufficient to explain the experiences that someone has during the stage his brain is in. From an orthodox standpoint lucid, complex subjective experiences are not what we would expect during a stage of flat EEG. So such experiences are a real anomaly for science and should make any rational person think twice about current 'orthodox' theories of mind-brain relations.
Any type of lucid experiences during a flat EEG implies consciousness is not solely a function of the brain. That obviously has consequences for what we have to expect after (real) brain death when brain activity stops irreversibly.

Titus

[reprise]

TR, I think the one thing on which believers and skeptics alike have agreed in this thread is that the Pam Reynold's case is more more complex than is represented by websites and books which offer her experience as "proof" of life after death - there are just too many questions about the possibilities for deliberate or unintended deception for the PR experience™ to be regarded as pivitol proof of post mortem existence.

Having said that I regard the Pam Reynold's experience as far too lacking in controls to draw any conclusions from it - let alone make inferences from those conclusions - I'm also quite willing to say that I do regard some of the studies quoted in this thread as having credibility; in particular, what is generally referred to on this particular messageboard as "The Lommel Study".

Far from science dismissing the results of that particular study, it is about to be repeated. Skeptics the world over are voicing their opinions about what controls they would like to see put in place for the replication study which were not in place for the original and that is as it should be. It's easy to attack the methodology of a given study in hindsight and find it flawed, but there is no excuse whatsoever for not stating those objections known in advance when it comes to replication research.

So it seems to me that skeptics and believers in LAD have a unique opportunity here to follow a research project from beginning to end. More to the point, while neither side has any power to influence the parameters of the experiment we both have the opportunity to state our concerns about the protocol in advance. Skeptics are often accused of objecting to the methodolgy of studies retrospectively. I believe that it should be possible for us to look at this study before it even starts, voice our concerns about the methodology in advance and evaluate the result objectively. The down-side of this suggestion is that it will be several years before the results are known. One of the crappy realities with which we are all forced to deal is the desire to have our viewpoint proven TODAY when the research which will support it or not takes a little longer than 24 hours to complete.

If any LAD believers are willing to track this study from beginning to end and voice any objections they have to the methodology before the study commences, I'm willing to do the same.

Any takers?

[Thoroughbred]

how do you delete a thread?

[Diogenes]

Whoa!
What a blast from the past !