Hellish near death experiences

[Nous]

Those who claim that the Pam Reynolds case is evidence of anything unusual carry the obligation of establishing their claim.

I didn't claim that Reynolds' case is unusual. I suspect that most everyone has or will eventually have some sort of experience like hers, in the ability to have lucid, complex experiences, formation of memory, and veridical perceptions not gotten through the sensory organs.

What exactly is the claim? That is, what fact about objective reality do you say is suggested? Express it as a falsifiable proposition so it can be tested.

Repeating #38, read closely this time:

The peer-reviewed literature documents that people can have lucid experiences including complex and logical thought processes, form memories, and [have] veridical perceptions not acquired through sensory organs during clinical death or the seconds immediately after resuscitation, when there is insufficient electrical activity and oxygen in the brain to maintain even fundamental cardiac and respiratory functions, much less the global cerebral activity commonly assumed to be necessary for such lucid experiences, logical thought processes and memory formation.

And, as I said, and you didn't address, show that it's more likely to be correct than pure chance

What's the chance? Chance of what? What are the odds?

not to mention anesthesia awareness

You already mentioned anesthetic awareness. The only problems are that (1) it isn't deduced from any fact that Reynolds experienced anesthetic awareness, and (2) anesthetic awareness does not account for her ability to describe the surgical saw, the tray of interchangeable blades, or to repeat the surgeon's words.

You also forgot to tell me what meaning of 'veridical' you're using.

I use words in their ordinary meaning. the definition of veridical

So obviously you are unable to account for Reynolds' reports to her surgeon, the report of Dr. Rudy's patient (confirmed by Dr. Amado-Cattaneo), or the report by the AWARE study patient. So what is the issue here?

 

[blü 2]

I didn't claim that Reynolds' case is unusual. I suspect that most everyone has or will eventually have some sort of experience like hers, in the ability to have lucid, complex experiences, formation of memory, and veridical perceptions not gotten through the sensory organs.

But the question is not whether she had an experience. The question is whether the experience was the product of her (stressed) mentation, or whether she was actually in an alternative reality (which is more than unusual.)

So, what specifically is your claim? Please spell it out clearly so we can come to grips with it.

 

[Nous]

But the question is not whether she had an experience. The question is whether the experience was the product of her (stressed) mentation

Her "stressed mentation"? What the hell are you talking about? No one's "mentation" is stressed when under burst-suppression anesthesia.

The question I asked you is how to account for the veridical perceptions documented by Reynolds, Dr. Rudy's patient and the AWARE study patient. You haven't been able to account for these how these reports, so, again, I ask: What's the issue?

or whether she was actually in an alternative reality

Discuss that with whoever made the claim about her being in an alternative reality.

 

[blü 2]

Her "stressed mentation"? What the hell are you talking about? No one's "mentation" is stressed when under burst-suppression anesthesia.

Her brain had just suffered a major trauma. Your own report makes that clear.

The question I asked you is how to account for the veridical perceptions documented by Reynolds

And once again you dodge a question about what you actually mean. I ask again, which meaning of 'veridical' are you using?

What's the issue?

I don't know. I asked you to state what your claim actually is, in the light of the reports you mention, but once again, asked to state what you mean, you dance away instead.

State what you claim is shown by the cases you refer to and once we've put that in a meaningful form, we can discuss it.

 

[Nous]

Her brain had just suffered a major trauma.

She was under burst-suppression anesthesia. Her eyes were taped closed, her ears were occluded with gauze and some kind of gunk, and she was being subjected to alternative white noise and very loud clicks in each ear. Yet, from a position above her surgeon's shoulder, she was able to describe the surgical saw and its tray of interchangeable blades, which the surgeon affirms that, in order to maintain sterile conditions, were not unwrapped until long after she was under anesthesia. You haven't accounted for her ability to describe the surgical saw and tray of interchangeable blades or her ability to repeat the surgeons' words about the vein in her thigh.

And once again you dodge a question about what you actually mean. I ask again, which meaning of 'veridical' are you using?

What are you confused about by the word veriidcal? Apply either or both of these definitions--both definitions elucidate the same concept:

the definition of veridical

1. truthful; veracious.

2. corresponding to facts; not illusory; real; actual;genuine.​

I don't know.

Then why are you posting? You don't have anything to add to the topic. You can't account for the reports of Reynolds, Dr. Rudy's patient, or the AWARE study patient. Obviously you haven't read any of the scholarly papers on the topic.

I asked you to state what your claim actually is

How many times do you need me to repeat this:

The peer-reviewed literature documents that people can have lucid experiences including complex and logical thought processes, form memories, and [have] veridical perceptions not acquired through sensory organs during clinical death or the seconds immediately after resuscitation, when there is insufficient electrical activity and oxygen in the brain to maintain even fundamental cardiac and respiratory functions, much less the global cerebral activity commonly assumed to be necessary for such lucid experiences, logical thought processes and memory formation.

?

 

[blü 2]

Apply either or both of these definitions--both definitions elucidate the same concept:
the definition of veridical

1. truthful; veracious.

2. corresponding to facts; not illusory; real; actual;genuine.​

​

The questions generated by a claim of truth (definition 1) are importantly different to those generated by a claim of apparent / possible / hypothetical truth (definition 2).

You appear to think there's no important difference. Weird.

The peer-reviewed literature documents that people can have lucid experiences including complex and logical thought processes, form memories, and [have] veridical perceptions not acquired through sensory organs during clinical death or the seconds immediately after resuscitation, when there is insufficient electrical activity and oxygen in the brain to maintain even fundamental cardiac and respiratory functions, much less the global cerebral activity commonly assumed to be necessary for such lucid experiences, logical thought processes and memory formation.?

Oh, is that all you're driving at? We've known for millennia that in some cases, a definitive diagnosis of irreversible cessation of life functions can be very tricky.

Just confirm to me that you're saying no more than that, and I'll apologize for suspecting you of supernatural claims, and leave you to it.

Otherwise ...

 

[Nous]

​

The questions generated by a claim of truth (definition 1) are importantly different to those generated by a claim of apparent / possible / hypothetical truth (definition 2).

The two definitions refer to the same concept. Definition 2 does not say anything about "apparent," "possible" or "hypothetical".

Oh, is that all you're driving at? We've known for millennia that in some cases, a definitive diagnosis of irreversible cessation of life functions can be very tricky.

Just confirm to me that you're saying no more than that, and I'll apologize for suspecting you of supernatural claims, and leave you to it.

I didn't make a claim that "life". I pointed out that the peer-reviewed literature documents the fact that people can have lucid experiences including complex and logical thought processes, form memories, and have veridical perceptions not acquired through sensory organs during clinical death or the seconds immediately after resuscitation, when there is insufficient electrical activity and oxygen in the brain to maintain even fundamental cardiac and respiratory functions, much less the global cerebral activity commonly assumed to be necessary for such lucid experiences, logical thought processes and memory formation.

 

[blü 2]

The two definitions refer to the same concept. Definition 2 does not say anything about "apparent," "possible" or "hypothetical".

The definition of 'veridical' I quoted from my dictionary, and which was the basis of my question to you is, I repeat ─
1. Truthful
2. Psych[ology]: of or relating to revelations by dreams, hallucinations etc. that appear to be confirmed by subsequent events.

So 'apparent', 'possible' and 'hypothetical' are innate in the question I asked you. Which of those two meanings did you intend?

I didn't make a claim that "life".

That life what?

I pointed out that the peer-reviewed literature documents the fact that people can have lucid experiences including complex and logical thought processes, form memories, and have veridical perceptions not acquired through sensory organs during clinical death or the seconds immediately after resuscitation, when there is insufficient electrical activity and oxygen in the brain to maintain even fundamental cardiac and respiratory functions, much less the global cerebral activity commonly assumed to be necessary for such lucid experiences, logical thought processes and memory formation.

To make clear the differences in our positions, here is that statement again with my amendments in bold:

the peer-reviewed literature documents the fact that people can have [read report having] lucid experiences including complex and logical thought processes, form [read report forming] memories, and have veridical perceptions [read and make claims of experiencing accurate perceptions of reality] not acquired through sensory organs [read assumed by some reporters of the event not to be possible] during clinical death during clinical death or the seconds immediately after resuscitation, when there is [insert apparently] insufficient electrical activity and oxygen in the brain to maintain even fundamental cardiac and respiratory functions, much less the global cerebral activity commonly assumed to be necessary for such lucid experiences, logical thought processes and memory formation.

[Insert If the reports are in fact accurate accounts of what the patient experienced, and not eg the patient's misunderstanding of sequences of events, or confabulation innocent or willed, they would suggest that our understanding of the relationship between consciousness, unconsciousness and apparent clinical death is still incomplete.]
​

May I take it by your silence that you don't seek to draw a supernatural 'therefore' from the reports, such as that after (irreversible) death, one's identity continues to exist for a substantial period of time, in some unexplained form, or whatever?

Or is that what you're actually driving at?

 

[DennisTate]

What is the claim of "the science of near- death experiences" in that book?

Why don't you account for the reports of perceptions by Pam Reynolds, Dr. Rudy's patient and the AWARE study patient? Links to the latter two are above. The best online account of Pam Reynolds' reports are from her own mouth in this video, beginning about 17:43:

Links to a further series of papers in the Journal of Near Death Studies can be found here: People Have Near-Death Experiences While Brain Dead

Great video, thank you!

I started it around the 17 minute mark to see Ms. Reynold's account...... I listed to all of it and plan to listen to it again soon. Amazing!

 

[Nous]

The definition of 'veridical' I quoted from my dictionary, and which was the basis of my question to you is, I repeat ─
1. Truthful
2. Psych[ology]: of or relating to revelations by dreams, hallucinations etc. that appear to be confirmed by subsequent events.

Then just use the definition I quoted. There are no words that should confuse you in it.

That life what?

My typo. I didn't make a claim about life.

To make clear the differences in our positions, here is that statement again with my amendments in bold:

the peer-reviewed literature documents the fact that people can have [read report having] lucid experiences including complex and logical thought processes, form [read report forming] memories, and have veridical perceptions [read and make claims of experiencing accurate perceptions of reality] not acquired through sensory organs [read assumed by some reporters of the event not to be possible] during clinical death during clinical death or the seconds immediately after resuscitation, when there is [insert apparently] insufficient electrical activity and oxygen in the brain to maintain even fundamental cardiac and respiratory functions, much less the global cerebral activity commonly assumed to be necessary for such lucid experiences, logical thought processes and memory formation.
​

Pam Reynolds, Dr. Rudy's patient and the AWARE study patient all reported their perceptions, but I do not make any claim on the mere basis of their reports but due to the fact that their reports were confirmed by the surgeons, physicians and other medical personnel who were present, and by the facts.

Reynolds did report and describe the surgical saw and tray of interchangeable blades that her neurosurgeon says he didn't bring out until after she was anesthetized and her eyes were taped shut. But what needs to be explained isn't merely her report; what needs to be explained is that her report was veridical (accurate). The same goes for her report of the surgeon's words about her vein and this surgeon's additional confirmation. For further on the latter, see Response to “Could Pam Reynolds Hear?"

In the case of Dr. Rudy's patient, both Drs. Rudy and Amado-Cattneo confirmed what this patient reported seeing after they had failed to resuscitate him and he exhibited a flat line on EKG for some 20 minutes. They confirmed that they were talking in the doorway, called the anesthesiologist back in, who rushed back in, and they confirmed that the patient reported things (the string of Post-it notes on the computer monitor) that he couldn't have seen from his position on the table even if his eyes had not been taped closed. Again, it's the patient's confirmed veridical perception that requires an explanation.

In the case of the AWARE study patient, Dr. Parnia calculates that the AED's automated voice does not issue its instruction until some 2-3 minutes after the patient's last shockable rhythm, well after people flatline on EEG.

​

If the reports are in fact accurate accounts of what the patient experienced, and not eg the patient's misunderstanding of sequences of events, or confabulation innocent or willed

Apparently you haven't bothered yourself to understand these patients' reports and their confirmations. Obviously none of the patients' veridical perceptions was due to some "misunderstanding" about something.

they would suggest that our understanding of the relationship between consciousness, unconsciousness and apparent clinical death is still incomplete.

Not everyone clings to beliefs about brains somehow manufacturing consciousness so as to be confounded by and about near-death experiences and veridical perceptions when their brains are not functioning.

​

May I take it by your silence that you don't seek to draw a supernatural 'therefore'

I don't know what you're talking about. Be sure to define your adjectives. As far as I know it is completely "natural" for consciousness to continue even after a brain has ceased to function.

 

[Nous]

Great video, thank you!

I started it around the 17 minute mark to see Ms. Reynold's account...... I listed to all of it and plan to listen to it again soon. Amazing!

Yeah, it's amazing. But I guess the reason it's so amazing is that her perceptions are so well documented and confirmed. As you are undoubtedly aware, there are numerous cases of people reporting having learned during an NDE that someone else had died, someone they couldn't otherwise have known had died. These are astounding cases. And, of course, the only way to account for these numerous such cases is to claim that it's one big multitude of conspiracies.

In the OP of the thread spurred by the Intelligence Squared debate (Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics?), I noted Ring and Cooper's documentation of people who have been blind since birth reporting seeing during NDEs, even of things that were subsequently confirmed. How could it be that a congenitally blind person, who doesn't dream or hallucinate in imagery or colors, would report seeing images and colors during an experience when they were apparently clinically dead? As I noted, one cannot claim that these experiences are just dreams or hallucinations when they are not like dreams or hallucinations of the congenitally blind.

Anyway, the further extensive discussion that occurred in IANDS Journal on Reynolds' case is also quite informative: People Have Near-Death Experiences While Brain Dead

 

[blü 2]

the fact that their reports were confirmed by the surgeons, physicians and other medical personnel who were present, and by the facts.

That doesn't displace anything I said.

Reynolds did report and describe the surgical saw and tray of interchangeable blades that her neurosurgeon says he didn't bring out until after she was anesthetized and her eyes were taped shut. But what needs to be explained isn't merely her report; what needs to be explained is that her report was veridical (accurate).

That doesn't displace anything Woerlee said.

The same goes for her report of the surgeon's words about her vein and this surgeon's additional confirmation.

In the case of Dr. Rudy's patient, &c

In the case of the AWARE study patient, &c

None of that (given it be true) looks to a better explanation than the one I mentioned: that our understanding of the relationship between conscious states, unconscious states and the absence of vital signs (according to our present techniques and instruments) is a work in progress.

What other conclusion do you wish to draw?

 

[Nous]

That doesn't displace anything I said.

You misrepresented what needs to be explained about the confirmed reports of veridical perceptions. Obviously you haven't provided any alternative explanation for Reynolds' ability to describe the surgical saw and tray of interchangeable blades or her ability to repeat the surgeon's words about her veins. There is no other explanation for these veridical perceptions than the fact that she saw, heard and remembered these perceptions but didn't acquire such perceptions by way of her sensory organs.

Obviously you haven't provided any alternative explanation for the perceptions that Drs. Rudy and Amado-Cattaneo report of their patient when he had not had a heart beat or blood pressure for more than 20 minutes and had been declared dead. There is no other explanation for this patient's ability to describe these two doctors standing in the doorway talking, calling the anesthesiologist who comes running back into the room, or the string of Post-it notes on the computer monitor that was on a table above and behind where his head lay. Like Reynolds, this patient described what he saw from a perspective well above where his body lay on the table. Dr. Rudy comments that this patient told of other things that he couldn't possibly have seen with his eyes (which were apparently taped, anyway, as is the invariable procedure for surgical patients).

Reports such as those of Reynolds, Dr. Rudy's patient and the AWARE study patient are not uncommon. What is not as common is for such reports to have been so well corroborated by physicians and other medical personnel. But, in fact, the literature is full of cases where someone had been in cardiac arrest, was resuscitated and subsequently told a nurse about seeing something in the vicinity that the patient couldn't possibly have seen with his or her eyes.

 

[blü 2]

Obviously you haven't provided any alternative explanation for Reynolds' ability to describe the surgical saw and tray of interchangeable blades or her ability to repeat the surgeon's words about her veins.

To quote my previous post:

None of that (given it be true) looks to a better explanation than the one I mentioned: that our understanding of the relationship between conscious states, unconscious states and the absence of vital signs (according to our present techniques and instruments) is a work in progress.​

And I ask you yet again: What other conclusion do you wish to draw?

 

[Nous]

To quote my previous post:

None of that (given it be true) looks to a better explanation than the one I mentioned: that our understanding of the relationship between conscious states, unconscious states and the absence of vital signs (according to our present techniques and instruments) is a work in progress.​

Obviously it doesn't explain the facts of these cases to say that "our understanding of the relationship between conscious states, unconscious states and the absence of vital signs (according to our present techniques and instruments) is a work in progress." Your statement asserting our ignorance doesn't explain how a person under burst-suppression anesthesia with her eyes taped closed was able to see (from a perspective above her body) and correctly describe a surgical saw and tray of interchangeable blades.

And I ask you yet again: What other conclusion do you wish to draw?

All I conclude about these and other such cases is basically what I said at the beginning: people can have complex, organized experiences, form memories, and have veridical perceptions not obtained through the sensory organs even during clinical death when there is a lack of sufficient electrical activity in the brain to sustain basic respiratory and cardiac functioning. From this fact, I can only conclude that consciousness is not somehow created by the electrical activity of the brain. That does not seem to be a far-fetched or unjustifiable conclusion anyway, given that electrical activity among biological cells simply do not possess properties that logically entail the creation of conscious experience and free will.

 

[blü 2]

I can only conclude that consciousness is not somehow created by the electrical activity of the brain.

No, that's not the only thing you can conclude. You have many possibilities to choose from ─ Woerlee's explanation, inaccurate reporting, key factors overlooked, we don't know the field well enough to answer the question yet, and so on. And those, unlike yours, don't depend on a magical hypothesis, the reason I find yours by far the least likely.

That does not seem to be a far-fetched or unjustifiable conclusion anyway, given that electrical activity among biological cells simply do not possess properties that logically entail the creation of conscious experience and free will.

Talk me step by step through a brain making a 'free' decision in those terms. I confess I have no idea how magic might work in reality, so I'm seriously interested in your description.

 

[Nous]

No, that's not the only thing you can conclude. You have many possibilities to choose from ─ Woerlee's explanation

As already noted, Woerlee doesn't provide an explanation that is deduced from any fact or that even accounts for the facts of the cases of Pam Reynolds, Dr. Rudy's patient or the AWARE study patient.

Reynolds' experience and perceptions are quite different from those of people who experience anesthetic awareness. Anesthetic awareness is almost invariably terrifying to patients, and people who experience anesthetic awareness are not confused about it; they don't claim that they popped out of the top of their heads and watched their surgeries from above, or claim having other experiences such as Reynolds describes.

Woerlee's assertion that Reynolds experienced anesthetic awareness is merely an accusation that Dr. Spetzler and all of the other many other personnel involved in her surgery and hospital stay acted unethically in covering up an instance of anesthetic awareness and that they have perpetrated a decades-long conspiracy of fabrications, rather than documenting and investigating the reason for this alleged failure of anesthesia as mandated by the American Society of Anesthesiologists requires. To fabricate falsehoods rather than documenting and investigating an actual case of anesthetic awareness makes it likely that other patients will be subjected to such horror, especially in this case since it is almost certain that Reynolds was not tolerant to narcotics. Woerlee's illogical accusation is unethical.

Woerlee's baseless claim that Reynolds' experienced anesthetic awareness is made more unethical because it does not account for the facts anyway, namely the fact that Reynolds accurately described the surgical saw and tray of interchangeable blades (inter alia), which Dr. Spetzler confirmed were not unwrapped and exposed until he was ready to use them, well after she was anesthetized and her eyes taped closed, and the fact that she was able to repeat the comments of the other surgeon working on her thigh veins

As Chris Carter explains, anesthetic awareness does not plausibly account for Reynolds' ability to repeat these comments. Her ears were occluded with molded speakers, packed with gauze and sealed with tape, with 60-decibel white noise piped into one ear and rapid 100-decibel clicks (11.3 per second) in the other, which alternated ears every 3 minutes:

In 2007--in response to skeptical objections that Reynolds may have simply overheard the surgeon’s remarks--Sabom added more detail to his account:

Steven Cordova, Neuroscience Manager at the Barrow Neurological Institute, who was the intraoperative technologist responsible for inserting small molded speakers into Spetzler’s patients in the early 1990s when Reynolds’ surgery was performed, told me that after these speakers were molded into each external auditory canal, they were further affixed with “mounds of tape and gauze to seal securely the ear piece into the ear canal.” This “tape and gauze” would “cover the whole ear pinnae” making it extremely unlikely that Reynolds could have physically overheard operating room conversation one hour and twenty minutes after anesthesia had been induced. (Sabom, 2007, 259)​

Ordinary conversation is at around 60 decibels, and the 100-decibel clicks were 10,000 times more intense than that; the decibel scale is a logarithmic scale based on multiples of 10, so a sound at 70 decibels is 10 times more intense than a sound at 60 decibels. Perceived loudness depends on both intensity and frequency, so loudness is partly, but not completely, a function of intensity alone. In her testimony Reynolds neither mentioned hearing loud clicks nor struggling to hear through them.​

Anesthetic awareness obviously doesn't account for the facts of the case of Dr. Rudy's patient who had not had a heart beat or blood pressure for some 20 minutes, and who, even if for some reason his eyes had not been taped closed, couldn't have observed the things he reported from his position on the operating table anyway. E.g., Dr. Amado-Cattaneo affirms that the table with the computer monitor on which the string of Post-it notes hung was above and behind the patient's head.

Anesthetic awareness does not account for the report by the AWARE study patient, who was not anesthetized and whose last shockable heart beat was 2-3 minutes prior to the automated instruction of the AED machine.

inaccurate reporting

The reports of Reynolds, Dr. Rudy's patient and the AWARE study patient were not inaccurate. It's their accuracy that requires an explanation--the only plausible explanation is that they actually didn't have the experiences and perceptions that they reported and that were confirmed by multiple medical personnel.

Talk me step by step through a brain making a 'free' decision in those terms.

I didn't make any claim about "a brain making a 'free' decision". Try responding to what I did say.

 

[blü 2]

As already noted, Woerlee doesn't provide an explanation that is deduced from any fact or that even accounts for the facts of the cases of Pam Reynolds, Dr. Rudy's patient or the AWARE study patient.

Woerlee raises points obvious to any skeptic.

And you insist that only one conclusion is possible, when many are possible.

Reynolds' experience and perceptions are quite different from those of people who experience anesthetic awareness.

Not according to Woerlee, who is not without expertise on the subject.

But we're repeating ourselves. Let's cut to the heart of our argument ─

I didn't make any claim about "a brain making a 'free' decision". Try responding to what I did say.

You said,

given that electrical activity among biological cells simply do not possess properties that logically entail the creation of conscious experience and free will.
​

And were it true, you could explain what else is present than 'electrical activity among biological cells', and the meaning of 'free; when you say it makes 'free' will possible, and the manner in which humans make decisions they could not make if it were absent.

I'll start a separate thread on that topic, and look forward to hearing from you.

 

[DennisTate]

Obviously it doesn't explain the facts of these cases to say that "our understanding of the relationship between conscious states, unconscious states and the absence of vital signs (according to our present techniques and instruments) is a work in progress." Your statement asserting our ignorance doesn't explain how a person under burst-suppression anesthesia with her eyes taped closed was able to see (from a perspective above her body) and correctly describe a surgical saw and tray of interchangeable blades.

All I conclude about these and other such cases is basically what I said at the beginning: people can have complex, organized experiences, form memories, and have veridical perceptions not obtained through the sensory organs even during clinical death when there is a lack of sufficient electrical activity in the brain to sustain basic respiratory and cardiac functioning. From this fact, I can only conclude that consciousness is not somehow created by the electrical activity of the brain. That does not seem to be a far-fetched or unjustifiable conclusion anyway, given that electrical activity among biological cells simply do not possess properties that logically entail the creation of conscious experience and free will.

And how could all the positive after effects of a near death experience happen
if there was no contact with higher dimensions or higher dimensional energy?

Bright Lights, Big Mystery

For Sappington and others, the issue is not whether the person is actually meeting God, but why NDErs routinely seem better adjusted, more at peace and content with themselves and the world after their experience. Disregarding, for the time being at least, how they got that way, and focusing on the changes themselves, psychologists would like to borrow this newfound sense of well-being and utilize it in therapy.
Reports are highly consistent and common: "I understand things so much more" and "My senses all seem heightened." Subjects claim "sudden knowledge and comprehension of complex mathematical theorems." Psychologist Ring has identified a consistent set of value and belief changes. They include:
a greater appreciation for life
o higher self-esteem
o greater compassion for others
o a heightened sense of purpose and self-understanding
o desire to learn
o elevated spirituality
o greater ecological sensitivity and planetary concern
o a feeling of being more intuitive, sometimes psychic.
o He also observes "psychophysical changes," including:
o increased physical sensitivity
o diminished tolerance to light, alcohol, and drugs
o a feeling that their brains have been "altered" to encompass more
o a feeling that they are now using their "whole brain" rather than just a small part.
NDErs undergo radical changes in personality, and their,significant others--spouses, friends, relatives--confirm these changes, reports Bruce Greyson, M.D., clinical psychiatrist and associate professor at the University of Connecticut. Like Sappington, he is concerned with what can be learned from such new outlooks on life." (Psychology Today, article Bright lights, big mystery, by James Mauro, published on July 01, 1992)

 

[Nous]

Woerlee raises points obvious to any skeptic.

Not all skeptics are idiots. Some are undoubtedly able to understand that Woerlee's claims are not deduced from any fact, and do not account for Reynolds' ability to correctly describe the surgical saw and tray of interchangeable blades.

You said,

given that electrical activity among biological cells simply do not possess properties that logically entail the creation of conscious experience and free will.
​

And were it true, you could explain what else is present than 'electrical activity among biological cells', and the meaning of 'free; when you say it makes 'free' will possible, and the manner in which humans make decisions they could not make if it were absent.

What you have written here is gobbledygook in addition to being false. I didn't say any such thing as "it makes free will possible" . When I use the pronoun "it," I know what "it" refers to. I didn't use it.