Pam Reynolds Near-Death Experience

As a non-debunker, I'm curious about how skeptics think they can deal with the so called Pam Reynolds Case. This is a relatively recent case of an Near Death Experience during brain surgery (to remove an aneurysm). In this case, the subject would have observed the procedure while her brain processes had been artificially stopped.

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'.

For more information visit these sites:

Visions and memories occur while brain dead
Pam Reynolds Homepage

Titus Rivas

As a non-debunker, I'm curious about how skeptics think they can deal with the so called Pam Reynolds Case.

Click to expand...

Ummm...skeptically.

Titus Rivas said:

As a non-debunker, I'm curious about how skeptics think they can deal with the so called Pam Reynolds Case. This is a relatively recent case of an Near Death Experience during brain surgery (to remove an aneurysm). In this case, the subject would have observed the procedure while her brain processes had been artifically stopped.

...snip...

Titus Rivas

Click to expand...

I'm not too sure what you mean by "skeptics think they can deal with"? What is there to "deal with"? Either the facts are right or they are wrong or we can't determine the right/wrong.

That's how I deal with most things - perhaps I'm not what you meant by a "skeptic"?

Titus Rivas said:

As a non-debunker, I'm curious about how skeptics think they can deal with the so called Pam Reynolds Case.

Click to expand...

Just like we deal with any other case. She's making the claim. She must provide the proof.

But I'll play along for this thread.

We can examine all the biological possibilities that could produce the types of phenomena associated with near death experiences, and we have before. Those types of studies are well documented. I'd wager that as her brain died, she experienced the same types of things any other person claiming near death experience reported.

As to the accuracy of her 'vision', I'll say this:

In this case, as in all near death cases, the vision has been deemed accurate because of 'memory hits' (similar to a cold reader getting positive hits). She simply had a brain dump, and some of that stuff coincided with what took place in the O.R.

But when did the events that triggered those memories actually take place? Before or after she was put to death? Did they take place at all? She was after all in a very traumatic situation.

I recently was put under for a minor knee operation and remember a great deal of activity in the O.R., as I was drifting from consciousness. But I can't reconstruct accurately the chronology of events, the faces, or anything else that took place. I could however, spew things out that the attendant staff would recognize, and possibly misperceive as accurate memories. This is probably what's happened in this case.

Also, don't be surprised to find that skeptics are not averse to saying "I just don't know". You'll find we resort to that answer when faced with the unexplained (although I doubt this case is really unexplained) before we jump to "well, I can't explain it, so there must be an afterlife."

Still, the burden of proof is hers.

Responding

Darat,

I'm not too sure what you mean by "skeptics think they can deal with"? What is there to "deal with"? Either the facts are right or they are wrong or we can't determine the right/wrong.

That's how I deal with most things - perhaps I'm not what you meant by a "skeptic"?

Click to expand...

I meant a real debunker

cOrbin,

Ummm...skeptically.

Click to expand...

Which would be?

Phil,

Just like we deal with any other case. She's making the claim. She must provide the proof.

Click to expand...

No doubt, but that's what she supposedly did.

We can examine all the biological possibilities that could produce the types of phenomena associated with near death experiences, and we have before. Those types of studies are well documented. I'd wager that as her brain died, she experienced the same types of things any other person claiming near death experience reported.

Click to expand...

You should read the material on the websites then. Her brain processes stopped altogether. Within a materialist framework she was not supposed to experience anything . That's the main feature of this case, isn't it?

But when did the events that triggered those memories actually take place? Before or after she was put to death? Did they take place at all? She was after all in a very traumatic situation.

Click to expand...

They did take place, as was confirmed by the surgeon (even to me personally via e-mail). They specifically concerned surgery, not anything which happened beforehand.

Also, don't be surprised to find that skeptics are not averse to saying "I just don't know". You'll find we resort to that answer when faced with the unexplained (although I doubt this case is really unexplained) before we jump to "well, I can't explain it, so there must be an afterlife."

Click to expand...

Would you agree however, that as long as you don't know the case at least deserves to be seen as interesting and if not, why not?

Best wishes,

Titus Rivas

You should read the material on the websites then. Her brain processes stopped altogether. Within a materialist framework she was not supposed to experience anything . That's the main feature of this case, isn't it?

Click to expand...

Why should any one assume that her expiriences happened after her brain processes stopped altogether?

Why?

This is the problem with NDE. No one can tell you how near their expirience was to death.

Titus Rivas said:

As a non-debunker, I'm curious about how skeptics think they can deal with the so called Pam Reynolds Case. This is a relatively recent case of an Near Death Experience during brain surgery (to remove an aneurysm). In this case, the subject would have observed the procedure while her brain processes had been artifically stopped.

Click to expand...

This sounds a little suspect, from what I understand, brain processes don't stop and start. It's not like your heart that can be restarted with a jolt of electricity. The only way that a brain stops functioning is when it's dead. The brain may slow it's function down to preserve oxygen, This gives the appearance of being off because the electrical response is very low and difficult to detect. But, if it shuts off then it can't be turned on.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just like we deal with any other case. She's making the claim. She must provide the proof.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No doubt, but that's what she supposedly did

Click to expand...

Are you saying she proved there's an afterlife, or she proved she experienced near death phenomena?

I have not had time to read all the specifics, but let's say the doctors stopped everything to where she was not supposed to experience anything at all. That point doesn't really matter. That's precisely why I included my own knee surgery experience. I was awake, though barely, before the operation, and lucid enough to look around the O.R., soaking up much of what I saw. Had I the gumption, I could have spewed a nice tale of the procedures that took place while I was out that would not have been completely accurate, but would have contained enough 'hits' that the gullable would believe I had somehow seen the operation in progress.

I'm suggesting that the same thing could be happening here. This woman at some point gathered information about things around her, or perhaps recalls something she saw on ER, and laid down a good story afterward with enough 'hits' that someone bought it and deemed her recollection accurate. (Notice no one ever says 'exact' in these cases).

The big question I guess is, how close to death were these memories (if they can be called memories) formed?

First, her heart was stopped or almost stopped by cold, she was not given a targeted neurotoxin to her brain. So during this period, she had brain function. Under those conditions the brain can function for some time. It has already been reported that children who fall into the ice can be fully alive (no brain damage) after over one hour underwater. The second fact that you should consider is that anasthesia, or any other treatment is not 100% effective in all people. I have a resistance to anasthetics, and when under general, I remember much of the operations, although I felt no pain. So her recalling things that went on are fully explainable. The mind tends to make things up and to connect data, which is why cold reading works too- people assume the paranormal when they do not know any better. This is another case of "we don't understand it all therefore paranormal." Finally, never underestimate humanities desire to evade death. Most everyone will rationalize and believe to the very end.
I find it unlikely this phenomena could be actively tested for due to ethical considerations, but maybe we should ask Gary Schwartz?

" Near " is the operative word here..




If she recalls things that took place while her brain was ' stopped ', then the obvious explanation is, that it wasn't.


I'm waiting for the report we get, when they have dug someone up after a week or so.



This from one of the ' Scientists ' quoted:

. For example, if you faint, you fall to the floor, you don’t know what’s happening and the brain isn’t working.

Click to expand...

Diogenes said:

If she recalls things that took place while her brain was ' stopped ', then the obvious explanation is, that it wasn't.

Click to expand...

Well, all the blood was drained out of her brain, her brain was chilled to 60 degrees Fahrenheit, and the EEG devices attached to her were all showing zero brain activity.

BUT,

From the webpage's description, all of the memories she has of things that supposedly happened to her during the surgery are memories of things that happened near the beginning of the surgery. Probably before her brain had "flatlined." All of her other "visions" were of dead relatives and tunnels of light and a vision of her own dead body being "covered" and other little daydreams like that, which she could have experienced after her brain was brought back "on line" but before she reawoke.

PHIL: In this case, as in all near death cases, the vision has been deemed accurate because of 'memory hits' (similar to a cold reader getting positive hits).

I can't believe you are implying that Pam Reynolds was a "cold" reader.

No Steve, I think he is just saying that tossing out a bunch of purported memories and getting some hits is similar to the way cold reading works.

~~ Paul

I liked this quote:

The modern tradition of equating death with an ensuing nothingness can be abandoned. For there is no reason to believe that human death severs the quality of the oneness in the universe

Click to expand...

There is nothing I hate worse than low-quality oneness. Eventually the quality gets so bad that twoness happens. But before that point, it's just lousy oneness all the way down.

~~ Paul

Paul, I guess you didn't get the humor. Sorry about that. Pam Reynolds, "cold reader" -- get it?

Anecdotal. Dismissed. Next?

Actually there was nothing anecdotal about Pam being cold. This is from a description of her case. The surgery was well documented and witnessed by a team of doctors and O.R. nurses.

"This operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who perform it, required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death. After removing the aneurysm, she was restored to life........"

Pam's brain and other tissues were protected from destruction by lowering her body temperature so that metabolism and oxygen consumption became nil. This is what protects drowning victims in cold fresh water and permits them to be revived even after being submerged a half hour or more. The statement above regarding such victims which implies they still had life in them and were not dead does not apply to the Reynolds case. Such drownings are anecdotal because EEGs are not performed in the field, there are no controlled conditions such as in Reynolds and the blood, however, cold and bereft of oxygen it is (by having the lungs filled with water) is not drained from the head.

SteveGrenard said:

Actually there was nothing anecdotal about Pam being cold. This is from a description of her case. The surgery was well documented and witnessed by a team of doctors and O.R. nurses.

"This operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who perform it, required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death. After removing the aneurysm, she was restored to life........"

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure that part's well-documented. It's her memories that are anecdotal. Can anyone specify when she had these visions? I don't think so. Could have been before, could have been after, could have been during -- nobody knows, and there's no way to know. It's anecdotal. Case dismissed for lack of objective evidence. Any conclusions that she experienced out-of-body projection/visions/near-death remote viewing is leaping to a biased conclusion. In fact, no conclusion positive or negative can be drawn here. It's a nice story, it really is, but that's all it is.

Paul, I guess you didn't get the humor. Sorry about that. Pam Reynolds, "cold reader" -- get it?

Click to expand...

Oops, missed those dang quotes!

~~ Paul

Oh yeah, I've seen this. It was called Flatliners.

SteveGrenard said:

PHIL: In this case, as in all near death cases, the vision has been deemed accurate because of 'memory hits' (similar to a cold reader getting positive hits).

I can't believe you are implying that Pam Reynolds was a "cold" reader.

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying she was in a stressful situation, and perhaps started recounting what she remembered, and an attendant staff member misperceived her recollections as events from the surgery. The snow ball starts to roll, and suddenly it's a near death experience. A couple of parties start to believe it, and the story sticks. I'm not saying she's purposely deceiving anyone, only that the collection of facts and the construction of the story was based on selective memory or forced memory, like the hits of a cold reader.

Edited to say: Sorry. I posted this before reading your follow up.

Have to admit, I didn't get your joke either, but it's pretty goddamn funny!

One thing which bothers me about this and other NDEs is the apparent lack of observation of things which should be visible to someone able to "see" a room from above.

By definition, the brain does not die during an NDE. In fact the precautions taken for brain surgery such as Reynolds' are taken in part to minimise the chances of the brain being damaged by the procedure.

Similarly, when we decide to cease CPR on a person it is generally after a period of time when we have reason to believe that extensive brain damage will have occured - the brain might not be "dead" in the sense of unable to have any form of functioning restored, but will almost certainly be damaged to the extent that independent existence will no longer be a possibility for the patient.

Like Phil, I have odd responses to anaesthesia - in particular I tend to come out of it extremely quickly. If you've ever had nitrous oxide for dental procedures or during labour, you'll be aware of that "distant" feeling it produces - especially with respect to sound. Nitrous is very often the gas used to maintain anaesthesia after initial induction, and it is not surprising that people sometimes recall sounds from their period of anaesthesia - the anaestheist is generally trying to use the lowest dose of anaesthetic compatible with the surgeon's requirements.

Not many skeptics maintain that NDEs do not exist - rather we reject claims that they are "supernatural" and offer "evidence" for persistence of consciousness after physical death.

A few points (some already made):

This woman was not at any time dead. Death is per definition an irreversible condition. She was, however, for the purpose of the operation, placed in a condition that clinically was almost indistinguishable from death.

I do not know how the procedures of that hospital, but it is a very normal procedure to go through the operation in great detail with patients that are about to undergo complex, risky operations. Till such time as it is documented that this did NOT happen in this case, I will assume that her detailed knowledge of the operation was due to the pre-op briefing she probably received.

Hallucinating and experiencing disrupted time-flow is quite normal for post-operative patients. I am sure all the things she report was actually percieved by her, but a patient waking up from brain surgery is not exactly what you would call a reliable whitness.

Hans

Titus, what do you mean by terming yourself a non-debunker? Are you implying that you believe anything you are told?

Hans

What type of evidence would you find acceptable?

So if I understand most of you guys correctly, you claim that Pam's memories would not relate to an episode during which the standstill procedure had already become effective. However, that is simply not in accordance with the acount she has given, which is why the case is judged so important by some in the first place. Her heart was supposed to have stopped beating already and there were no brain waves.

Here's some details:

"There was so much in the operating room that I didn't recognize, and so many people."

"I thought the way they had my head shaved was very peculiar. I expected them to take all of the hair, but they did not ...

"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,"

"Someone said something about my veins and arteries being very small. I believe it was a female voice and that it was Dr. Murray, but I'm not sure. She was the cardiologist. I remember thinking that I should have told her about that ... I remember the heart-lung machine. I didn't like the respirator ... I remember a lot of tools and instruments that I did not readily recognize."

Like a few other NDEers, she provided information about what happened to her in the operating room that was corroborated by technical witnesses. Although she previously did not have specific information about the procedures that were performed on her, she provided detailed descriptions that were later substantiated.

I gather that a renowned neurosurgeon as Dr. Robert F. Spetzler of the Division of Neurosurgery Barrow Neurological Institute (Phoenix, Arizona) wouldn't officially state her account was remarkably accurate when it actually wasn't. In his own words: "Her recollections occurred shortly after surgery and were remarkably accurate. There was no cortical activity whatsoever nor were there any brainstem evoked potentials. I remain skeptical but have seen too many unexplained phenomena to be so arrogant as to know that they didn’t happen."

So much for the justification of the non-debunker's fascination and even enthusiasm. (Comment on somebody's enthusiasm about this formulation : I just meant that this is what I wanted to say about it here, sorry if I didn't use the right expression )

What's your reason to just dismiss the case out of hand anyway if you take all this in consideration?

What type of similar case would be acceptable for you? I mean when would you believe that at least some persons continue to experience something after their brain stopped functioning altogether. Any suggestions?

By the way, MRC_Hans, you asked what I meant by terming myself a non-debunker? Well, the answer is quite simple: I don't make it a habit to dismiss something out of hand just because it wouldn't fit in the orthodox scientific world view, and I don't have a materialist framework anyway.
As I understand it, those are two defining characteristics of most debunkers (dismissal of anything that seems to contradict the orthodox scientific world view and adherence to that world view), wouldn't you agree?
Which does not mean I would believe everything I'm being told. For one thing, I don't easily buy a skeptical explanation of a possible anomaly .

Best wishes,

Titus

Nobody is "dismissing out of hand" Pam Reynold's experience - please don't try to set up a strawman - we just reject the notion that there is anything "mystical" about it.

The so-called "stand-still" procedure is exactly that - it's specifically designed to stop the suffering damage or dying during procedures which normal circulation cannot be maintained - the brain doesn't "stop" functioning altogether, it just functions at such a low level that its activity is undetectable. No-one pretends that the brain actually "stops" (we'd be in trouble if it did, because we know how to restart cardiac and respiratory function, but we don't yet know how to "restart" a brain), only that it is put in a state something similar to hibernation.

Reynold's was already a participant in an NDE study at the time of the surgery - this is extremely bad scientific control of a study.

Personally, I believe that NDEs will be found to be a similar phenomenon to sleep paralysis and ICU-itis.

I'd be extremely interested in finding out the anaesthesia protocol for this particular operation, as the brain itself doesn't feel pain and it's highly possible that something less than total anaesthesia was required during much of the operation.

This particular piece of horsecrap is particularly worth noting :

... an unconscious state is when the brain ceases to function. For example, if you faint, you fall to the floor, you don’t know what’s happening and the brain isn’t working.

Click to expand...

The brain does not "cease to function" during unconsciousness - if it did, we'd die each time we lost consciousness; quite obviously, we do not die every time we lose consciousness. It's also quite common for people to drift in and out of consciousness during and immediately after traumatic events - sometimes having a recollection of what occured prior to fully regaining consciousness and sometimes not.

We have to eliminate an awful lot of mundane explanations for NDEs before we seriously start considering paranormal ones.

What would convince you an NDE is really anomalous?

Nobody is "dismissing out of hand" Pam Reynold's experience - please don't try to set up a strawman - we just reject the notion that there is anything "mystical" about it.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the provocative shorthand on my part. I thought you could appreciate that. I had understood such provocative wording would be part of the social conventions among debunkers.

The so-called "stand-still" procedure is exactly that - it's specifically designed to stop the suffering damage or dying during procedures which normal circulation cannot be maintained - the brain doesn't "stop" functioning altogether, it just functions at such a low level that its activity is undetectable. No-one pretends that the brain actually "stops" (we'd be in trouble if it did, because we know how to restart cardiac and respiratory function, but we don't yet know how to "restart" a brain), only that it is put in a state something similar to hibernation

Click to expand...

The point is not whether it literally stopped in all respects, the point is that it stopped to the extent that any experience would be in contradiction with most if not all contemporary materialist models of mental functioning. I've often read about skeptics who criticize the notion that people with an NDE had really been 'dead'. As if the cases would only be anomalous if the person in question had really been physically dead! Quite a flaw I'd say, as the problem would still be that a flat EEG cannot (within contemporary neurology anyway) be reconciled with any type of lucid subjective functioning.

Reynold's was already a participant in an NDE study at the time of the surgery - this is extremely bad scientific control of a study.

Click to expand...

Do you really think so? I would rather think it's an additional positive feature of the case as more variables should have been known beforehand.

But again, what type of case would be a real problem for your views? Can you give a hypothetical description of such a case?

Best wishes,

Titus

Why are people assuming that Pam Reynolds' visions took place when she had a flat EEG? Nobody knows when or if she experienced those "visions". The whole thing is a leap of faith, all scientific festooning aside.

I do dismiss her experience out-of-hand.

Re: What would convince you an NDE is really anomalous?

Titus Rivas said:

Sorry for the provocative shorthand on my part. I thought you could appreciate that. I had understood such provocative wording would be part of the social conventions among debunkers.

It is. So are snap rebuttals .

The point is not whether it literally stopped in all respects, the point is that it stopped to the extent that any experience would be in contradiction with most if not all contemporary materialist models of mental functioning. I've often read about skeptics who criticize the notion that people with an NDE had really been 'dead'. As if the cases would only be anomalous if the person in question had really been physically dead! Quite a flaw I'd say, as the problem would still be that a flat EEG cannot (within contemporary neurology anyway) be reconciled with any type of lucid subjective functioning.

The point is that nobody, not even Pam Reynolds, can know WHEN those perceptions occurred. The only thing we know is that she reported it at some time after the procedure.

(On PR already being involved in NDE studies)
Do you really think so? I would rather think it's an additional positive feature of the case as more variables should have been known beforehand.

Ever heard of a thing like observer bias?

But again, what type of case would be a real problem for your views? Can you give a hypothetical description of such a case?

Beside the point, but to convince a skeptic, you need solid evidence, simple as that.

Best wishes,

Titus [/B]

Click to expand...

Basically, this account is an NDE. Unless PR made up the whole thing, she had an NDE. I don't see anybody refuting that. What is refuted is that an NDE is a paranormal event.

Hans


Hans

Meaning?

Beside the point, but to convince a skeptic, you need solid evidence, simple as that.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, Hans, but what would constitute such evidence in this context? Meaning for yourself and other debunkers?

Best wishes,

Titus

Evidence of what, exactly? She certainly did have a NDE. I wouldn't argue with with that. What I would argue is that there was anything paranormal about it, as all of her experiences can be explained by mundane means, as people have done in this thread.

So what evidence would be acceptable would depend on the specific claim being made. So let's say someone claims that during an operation, they found themselves floating outside their body observing the operation. What would be conclusive evidence that it actually happened? Let's say the person, after waking up, is able to report the details accurately of another room in the building that there is no way they have seen, ever. That would be pretty good, although there are a LOT of ways someone could cheat that would have to be eliminated. And the room would have to contain some unique, unexpected objects for a hospital room, of course. I mean, I could pretty accurately describe a random hospital room right now, but that doesn't mean I have special powers. It just means I've seen hospital rooms before.

Really, though, the evidence depends on the specific claims being made. I see nothing in this particular case that can't be explained mundanely.

I am extremely suspicious of the fact that this person was already participating in an NDE study, there is a very large possibility that there was communication given to Reynolds after her operation about what took place, and I have not found anything in the pages that you have given that tell me otherwise.

I need to know more details about this case: When did Pam Reynolds write her report? Did she have contact with any of the people involved in the operation before she put it down on paper? How was the information verified?

Titus said:

I don't make it a habit to dismiss something out of hand just because it wouldn't fit in the orthodox scientific world view, and I don't have a materialist framework anyway.
As I understand it, those are two defining characteristics of most debunkers (dismissal of anything that seems to contradict the orthodox scientific world view and adherence to that world view),

Click to expand...

You know, this straw man is so big and so strong that he'll soon morph into a steel man. I spend some time on another forum called Debunker Debunkers, and they have this same twisted definition of debunk. That allows them to dismiss anything that someone says once they've labeled him a debunker, precisely the thing they are complaining about concerning debunkers.

Just put a note on top of a cabinet in the operating room---after the patient is flatlined---and ask her to read it during her NDE.

~~ Paul

Re: What type of evidence would you find acceptable?

What dissonance said!

Lets have a look at her testimonial:

Titus Rivas said:

So if I understand most of you guys correctly, you claim that Pam's memories would not relate to an episode during which the standstill procedure had already become effective. However, that is simply not in accordance with the acount she has given, which is why the case is judged so important by some in the first place. Her heart was supposed to have stopped beating already and there were no brain waves.

Here's some details:

"There was so much in the operating room that I didn't recognize, and so many people."

So she did not see the operating room very clearly. The "many people" is typical of post-operative perception; in your unclear condition, you notice people coming and going, but you have no sense of time, so you think it all happens at the same time. Tried it myself.

"I thought the way they had my head shaved was very peculiar. I expected them to take all of the hair, but they did not ...

Yeh, interesting, but she would notice this after waking.

"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,"

If she did not encounter this during the prebriefing, she probably saw it on TV earlier, I certainly have, and since she must have known for some time that she was to undergo brain surgery, she might have looked for TV features about that, they might even have shown her some.

"Someone said something about my veins and arteries being very small. I believe it was a female voice and that it was Dr. Murray, but I'm not sure. She was the cardiologist. I remember thinking that I should have told her about that

This is nonsense. Leading up to of the operation, they would already have stuck about a hundred needles in her, and if her veins were small, she would have heard that remark repeatedly.

... I remember the heart-lung machine. I didn't like the respirator ... I remember a lot of tools and instruments that I did not readily recognize."

Anybody here who hasn't seen a heart-lung machine or a respirator, on TV at least? I would also guess at there being lotsa strange instruments.

Like a few other NDEers, she provided information about what happened to her in the operating room that was corroborated by technical witnesses. Although she previously did not have specific information about the procedures that were performed on her, she provided detailed descriptions that were later substantiated.

Again, was she not briefed about the operation? That would be unusual. What descriptions that she could not make based on previous experience?

I gather that a renowned neurosurgeon as Dr. Robert F. Spetzler of the Division of Neurosurgery Barrow Neurological Institute (Phoenix, Arizona) wouldn't officially state her account was remarkably accurate when it actually wasn't. In his own words: "Her recollections occurred shortly after surgery and were remarkably accurate. There was no cortical activity whatsoever nor were there any brainstem evoked potentials. I remain skeptical but have seen too many unexplained phenomena to be so arrogant as to know that they didn’t happen."

Appeal to false authority. No doubt the gentleman is an exellent neurosurgeon, but is he qualified in investigation of NDE evidence?

So much for the justification of the non-debunker's fascination and even enthusiasm.

You said it!

What's your reason to just dismiss the case out of hand anyway if you take all this in consideration?

That the report can be explained in mundane terms.

*snip*

Sorry, outta time right now.
Best wishes,

Titus

Click to expand...

Hans

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:

Titus said:
You know, this straw man is so big and so strong that he'll soon morph into a steel man. I spend some time on another forum called Debunker Debunkers, and they have this same twisted definition of debunk. That allows them to dismiss anything that someone says once they've labeled him a debunker, precisely the thing they are complaining about concerning debunkers.

Just put a note on top of a cabinet in the operating room---after the patient is flatlined---and ask her to read it during her NDE.

~~ Paul

Click to expand...

I work as an equipment fixer guy in a hospital. I feel a little silly about this, but after seeing a show on TEEVEE describing a similar, or possibly the same, claim offered by the non-debunker, I placed a learn-to-read flashcards on the top arm of all the OR lights after I did maintenance on them. I swiped the cards from my daughter... you know those ones that say CAT, and there's a picture of a cat, or DOG with the picture of the dog? We get the occassional patient that recounts the "floating over my body watching the operation" tale, after their surgery while they are in the post anesthesia recovery unit. I told all the PACU nurses about my little experiment, and they're playing along. They told me they've had a few "floaters", but no hits yet.

MRC_Hans said:

A few points (some already made):

This woman was not at any time dead. Death is per definition an irreversible condition. Hans

Click to expand...

That's a very useful definition of death for skeptics to adopt isn't it?

Pyrrho said:

Anecdotal. Dismissed. Next?

Click to expand...

What would constitute a non-anecdotal NDE?

Quasi said:

Most everyone will rationalize and believe to the very end.
[/B]

Click to expand...

One finds himself or herself in some sort of "otherworldly" reality were they feel more conscious and alive than they have ever been in their lives. The question then is why should that person believe that they will very shortly instantaneously cease to be? Surely one would not need to rationalize in order to suppose they will continue having experiences? Rather it seems to me that they would need to rationalise in order to construe the experience as being some sort of hallucination, and that very shortly they will just switch off like a light. What conceivable justification could warrant this belief?

reprise said:

Nobody is "dismissing out of hand" Pam Reynold's experience - please don't try to set up a strawman - we just reject the notion that there is anything "mystical" about it.

Click to expand...

[Translation]

We just reject the notion of any explanation inconsistent with materialist principles.

[/Translation]

ie you already know the truth about the world, therefore any evidence which challenges this "knowledge", simply must be flawed in some way or other.

Too Vague

I don't know, I just think that anedote sounds too vague. If she witnessed it first hand and she can't explain it, then how are we to know?

The light was incredibly bright, like sitting in the middle of a light bulb. It was so bright that I put my hands in front of my face fully expecting to see them and I could not. But I knew they were there. Not from a sense of touch. Again, it's terribly hard to explain, but I knew they were there ...

Click to expand...