A MOST SENSATIONAL NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCE

Her brain was dead, her heartbeat stopped, blood drained, eyes taped - ears blocked with clickers. She was 'clinically dead' for one hour. Pam Reynolds underwent a rare operation to remove a life threatening giant aneurysm [an abnormal widening or ballooning of a portion of an artery] in her brain. The only way that the doctors could operate was to connect her to a machine to process her blood, lower her body temperature to 60 degrees, and to totally stop her heart-beat and brain activity. According to Dr Michael Sabom, “This case is considered to be one of the strongest cases of proven evidence in NDE research because of Pam’s ability to describe in detail the unique surgical instruments used while she was dead, what the nurses said to the doctors while operating other and procedures used. Pam Reynolds’ had this spectacular ability to describe in detail these events while she was clinically and brain dead.” Watch closely this video: Pam Reynolds herself and medical experts explain the stunning evidence.

Obviously, "clinically dead" is not the same thing as being dead, otherwise they wouldn't bother to finish the operation. Our definition of death is faulty.

This is a good story, though. The emotional appeal of it reminds me of dreams I have when sleeping. The experience Pam Reynolds describes may indeed have a lot in common with dreaming. The same mechanism may be at work, in combination with other processes that we don't understand, like this one. The explanations of reincarnation and life after death may just be our childish attempts to explain what we cannot currently understand. That in itself, meaning attempts to explain that which we cannot currently understand, is a phenomenon expressed throughout history as religion.

Science could wind up being one of the most blinded immature exhibitions of human idiocy ever. Maybe time will tell.
Absolutely in your face evidence taken as mere fantasy or a primitive delusion. Complete irony.

Is it science, or is it subjective experience? Science attempts to minimize subjective experience on the one hand (via measurement, reproducibility, mechanistic analysis, etc.), and gather consensus of this on the other (peer review). And what is the methodology of subjective experience? There is none. It is what you feel, and feeling is equated with knowing. Is this justified? If it were, would we ever have invented the methodology of science?

Well placed question to tease out the essence of the problem. Its subjective science co-opted by narcissistic sociopaths? Power corrupts? People see what they want to see?
It's full of human problems.

Exactly.

I think dogma can infect any human activity. It's almost unavoidable if you consider that people are creatures of habit. If the universe is also a creature of habit, as Sheldrake suggests, then perhaps it too is dogmatic in its behavior. Is that good or bad?

bump