Mental imagery as non-physical perception pt. 2

[AgnosticBoy]

Critics of scientific realism ask how the inner perception of mental images actually occurs. This is sometimes called the "homunculus problem" (see also the mind's eye). The problem is similar to asking how the images you see on a computer screen exist in the memory of the computer. To scientific materialism, mental images and the perception of them must be brain-states. According to critics, scientific realists cannot explain where the images and their perceiver exist in the brain. To use the analogy of the computer screen, these critics argue that cognitive science and psychology have been unsuccessful in identifying either the component in the brain (i.e., "hardware") or the mental processes that store these images (i.e. "software").

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_image

I presented this argument a few months ago on this forum. I will play more of an information-seeking role here because I was left unsatisfied in the last thread. So again, I pose this challenge to materialists to use empirically-verifiable evidence to explain how or why mental images are physical when we DO NOT perceive them with our senses (hallucinations, dreams, etc).

Here's an easier way to put it:
1. Why aren't scientists able to observe our mental images (our hallucinations, dreams, etc) if they are physical?

2. Since perception involves our senses, then how am I able to perceive mental images without my senses?

I want scientifically verifiable peer-reviewed evidence-based answers to my questions. If you don't know, then just admit it. Don't simply tell me that scientists will figure it out - that's FAITH ... not scientific EVIDENCE.

[AgnosticBoy]

Yes, in the context of Pam Reynold's NDE. She was aware of her external environment while her brain and senses were impaired.

Anesthesia awareness:
Skeptics argue that her recollections could be attributed to anesthesia awareness, where patients regain some consciousness during surgery, even under general anesthesia.

I've already addressed the anesthesia awareness point. It doesn't explain her experiences when the senses are also impaired due to her ears being plugged and eyes are taped shut.

Sensory recall:
Some propose that her auditory perceptions were due to her ability to hear during periods of conscious awareness while under the influence of anesthesia.

People who have anesthesia awareness have reported hearing things, but not while their ears are plugged up with ear buds that generate loud sounds. Is there any evidence beyond just made-up scenarios to show that she could hear using her ears?

Memory elaboration:
It's also suggested that after regaining consciousness, she might have elaborated on her sensations, associating them with information she later learned about the surgery.

It is possible that she could've learned about some details of her surgery by reading about them from her medical records or learning it from the healthcare staff, but is it likely? Is there any evidence that any part of your scenario took place?

Although there's no control to keep a patient from their medical records, but I still think your scenario is unlikely given the type of information that she recalled and the type of people involved. Pam recalled information that wasn't medically pertinent, like the name of a song being played during the surgery and experiences not even having to do with the surgery itself, like meeting her dead grandmother. Those are not details that would be in a medical report. Had she recalled only medical type of information, as I would expect for someone going off of only a medical report, then the likelihood of your scenario increases.

I also doubt your scenario because some of the non-medical stuff would have to be from the healthcare staff. Why would they not come out and say that Pam knew about these details because they told her about it? Does that mean then that the healthcare staff are all involved in this? The staff barely knew her beyond just being one of many patients, no financial incentives, and lying and trying to profit from health information would probably be unethical. Dr. Eben Alexander's NDE has been called into question because he had malpractice lawsuits filed against him (one notable one in March 2008) the same year he had his NDE (November 2008). Some say he tried to profit off of his NDE to cover any damage to his reputation caused by such cases. Read about that here and here (read section called "Medical Politics").

Lack of independent corroboration:
While some details were later confirmed, some argue that the case relies heavily on her self-report, and more independent corroboration would be needed to prove her perceptions were truly veridical (accurate to reality).

This is very vague. How much more corroboration would be needed or is it just arbitrary and selective? Why isn't the existing independent corroboration we have enough?

Sure, more is better, but does less count for nothing?

I note the above and also note that cases like this should not be so rare if there is in fact something external providing us with awareness. Currently I hold to the position that something rare happened to Pam and not that there is something external, again because it should happen thousands of times a day to humans all over the world if that were the case it would seem to me.

I've already addressed this point and none of your points explain why my response was wrong. The issue is not that these experience are rare, because many do report them. Even kids report having NDEs. The issue is that most of the reported experiences are not independently corroborated. One big reason for the lack of corroboration by experts is that there is no serious science around the topic, and when one tries to establish one, there is pushback from the mainstream. It's seen as being just as taboo as UFOs. The "taboos" in science has held back our knowledge.

I would love for there to be something external to our brains that supplies us with our ability to be aware of our surroundings. We could then imagine all sorts of possibilities and even speculate on life after death and what have you. We are not there yet though if you ask me.

As William has alluded to, consciousness is awareness itself. The medium it exists in only determines how it experiences the world, whether it be through sight, hearing, taste, etc. Evidence also shows that consciousness can experience without the body's senses via OBEs or just experiencing things in your mind (e.g. dreams, hallucinations). I recall an old analysis that detailed the type of things experienced during an OBE and one of them included panoramic vision (360 vision). I would expect for vision during an NDE would allow the person to see in different ways when not limited to the eyes. In more extreme cases, vision may not even be limited by time and space. If I find that study I'll post it here.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #89]

Not if it is just an emergent property of a functioning mind.

Even IF, it is still clear that consciousness is indeed a mystery to the human race. Claiming it is (maybe) emergent of "a functioning mind" (whatever that is meant to be understood as) does not magically demystify consciousness.

It has not been shown to not be just that, therefore you claim cannot be trusted.

My claim is that consciousness IS a mystery to the human race. You appear to be claiming otherwise, so the onus is on you to show that claim is trustworthy...please tell us all about consciousness. Leave nothing out.

con·scious·ness
/ˈkänSHəsnəs/
noun
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

No - that is clearly being conscious. You are conflating an act with the thing that acts.

Humans are not the state of being aware of our surroundings though. That doesn't even read logically.

What are you attempting to convey with the above?

Perhaps if you came at this from this angle: "Why are you aware of your surroundings"?

Because I am conscious of my surroundings. It is consciousness which allows for me to be conscious of my surroundings.

This also applies to any experience I have, either while my body is awake or asleep - or in the case of NDEs - when my body ceases to function as a living organism.
THis also applies to OOBEs when my body doesn't cease to function as a living organism but I - the consciousness am conscious of exiting my body and experiencing whatever surroundings come through that.

I accused you of complaining about what mainstream neuroscience has said.

Then provide the evidence that any brain is capable of intent without consciousness.

What do you note for the external 'thing'? I would like to compare.

As I noted in a previous post, I have made no claims that consciousness is internal OR external. My argument is simply that I am consciousness, which means I do not identify as a "brain".

Do you want to discuss consciousness or NDE's?

I am happy to discuss anything to do with consciousness.

For example:

Re: What is real? How do we know what is real?

The problem I find with a purely materialistic outlook is that it literally comes to a dead end, whereas - as the link shows, being open to the possibilities involved with consciousness and what it experiences, while complex and mysterious, is anything but a dead end.

[Clownboat]

Yes, in the context of Pam Reynold's NDE. She was aware of her external environment while her brain and senses were impaired.

Anesthesia awareness:
Skeptics argue that her recollections could be attributed to anesthesia awareness, where patients regain some consciousness during surgery, even under general anesthesia.

I've already addressed the anesthesia awareness point. It doesn't explain her experiences when the senses are also impaired due to her ears being plugged and eyes are taped shut.

Sensory recall:
Some propose that her auditory perceptions were due to her ability to hear during periods of conscious awareness while under the influence of anesthesia.

People who have anesthesia awareness have reported hearing things, but not while their ears are plugged up with ear buds that generate loud sounds. Is there any evidence beyond just made-up scenarios to show that she could hear using her ears?

Memory elaboration:
It's also suggested that after regaining consciousness, she might have elaborated on her sensations, associating them with information she later learned about the surgery.

It is possible that she could've learned about some details of her surgery by reading about them from her medical records or learning it from the healthcare staff, but is it likely? Is there any evidence that any part of your scenario took place?

Although there's no control to keep a patient from their medical records, but I still think your scenario is unlikely given the type of information that she recalled and the type of people involved. Pam recalled information that wasn't medically pertinent, like the name of a song being played during the surgery and experiences not even having to do with the surgery itself, like meeting her dead grandmother. Those are not details that would be in a medical report. Had she recalled only medical type of information, as I would expect for someone going off of only a medical report, then the likelihood of your scenario increases.

I also doubt your scenario because some of the non-medical stuff would have to be from the healthcare staff. Why would they not come out and say that Pam knew about these details because they told her about it? Does that mean then that the healthcare staff are all involved in this? The staff barely knew her beyond just being one of many patients, no financial incentives, and lying and trying to profit from health information would probably be unethical. Dr. Eben Alexander's NDE has been called into question because he had malpractice lawsuits filed against him (one notable one in March 2008) the same year he had his NDE (November 2008). Some say he tried to profit off of his NDE to cover any damage to his reputation caused by such cases. Read about that here and here (read section called "Medical Politics").

Lack of independent corroboration:
While some details were later confirmed, some argue that the case relies heavily on her self-report, and more independent corroboration would be needed to prove her perceptions were truly veridical (accurate to reality).

This is very vague. How much more corroboration would be needed or is it just arbitrary and selective? Why isn't the existing independent corroboration we have enough?

Sure, more is better, but does less count for nothing?

I note the above and also note that cases like this should not be so rare if there is in fact something external providing us with awareness. Currently I hold to the position that something rare happened to Pam and not that there is something external, again because it should happen thousands of times a day to humans all over the world if that were the case it would seem to me.

I've already addressed this point and none of your points explain why my response was wrong. The issue is not that these experience are rare, because many do report them. Even kids report having NDEs. The issue is that most of the reported experiences are not independently corroborated. One big reason for the lack of corroboration by experts is that there is no serious science around the topic, and when one tries to establish one, there is pushback from the mainstream. It's seen as being just as taboo as UFOs. The "taboos" in science has held back our knowledge.

I would love for there to be something external to our brains that supplies us with our ability to be aware of our surroundings. We could then imagine all sorts of possibilities and even speculate on life after death and what have you. We are not there yet though if you ask me.

As William has alluded to, consciousness is awareness itself. The medium it exists in only determines how it experiences the world, whether it be through sight, hearing, taste, etc. Evidence also shows that consciousness can experience without the body's senses via OBEs or just experiencing things in your mind (e.g. dreams, hallucinations). I recall an old analysis that detailed the type of things experienced during an OBE and one of them included panoramic vision (360 vision). I would expect for vision during an NDE would allow the person to see in different ways when not limited to the eyes. In more extreme cases, vision may not even be limited by time and space. If I find that study I'll post it here.

I acknowledge that you find these provided possible explanations to be unsatisfactory.
Do you acknowledge how unsatisfactory 'thing' is as an explanation for justifying a belief that consciousness is independent from our brains?

At least there are known, real world explanations for you to reject that could explain the Pam case.
What explanations do we have for me to critique that could explain consciousness being independent of our brains?

Bottom line, I don't pretend to know what happened with Pam and I don't pretend to know that our consciousness comes independent from our brains. I only note that our brains are all that is required in order for us and other animals on this planet to be aware/conscious and how affecting our brains, does affect our consciousness as if the two were one in the same.

It would be an appeal to ignorance fallacy to attribute a mysterious or unexplained phenomenon (thing) to a specific conclusion (consciousness being independent) without sufficient evidence. It seems to me that all you have is a mystery to point at. I accept the mystery and am waiting on a valid reason to accept the conclusion you have provided.

[Clownboat]

Even IF, it is still clear that consciousness is indeed a mystery to the human race. Claiming it is (maybe) emergent of "a functioning mind" (whatever that is meant to be understood as) does not magically demystify consciousness.

Copy/paste to save time:
It would be an appeal to ignorance fallacy to attribute a mysterious or unexplained phenomenon (thing) to a specific conclusion (consciousness being independent) without sufficient evidence. It seems to me that all you have is a mystery to point at. I accept the mystery and am waiting on a valid reason to accept the conclusion you have provided.

My claim is that consciousness IS a mystery to the human race.

I acknowledge that you claim this.

You appear to be claiming otherwise, so the onus is on you to show that claim is trustworthy...please tell us all about consciousness. Leave nothing out.

Why ask me when I have provided explanations from professionals that you have ignored?

Copy/paste to save time:
One predominant approach to understanding how humans become conscious is called the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC). This concept, made popular by former Caltech professor Christof Koch, describes how different parts of the brain work together to give rise to consciousness.
https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/top ... sciousness

More from the same source:
It suggests that specific neural processes and activities in the brain are connected to specific aspects of the conscious experience. For instance, when scientists take images of brain activity using fMRI, they can observe how different areas of the brain "light up," or activate, depending on the thoughts or emotions an individual is experiencing. If a person is shown a picture of a face for example, the fusiform face area (FFA) in the temporal lobe of the brain shows increased activity. However, if the person is shown a picture of a house, the parahippocampal place area (PPA) in the brain shows increased activity instead. This suggests that these patterns of activity among nerve cells in the brain are deeply related to our subjective conscious experiences.

You 'onus' challenge you placed on me was already met.

con·scious·ness
/ˈkänSHəsnəs/
noun
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

No - that is clearly being conscious. You are conflating an act with the thing that acts.

You act as if I invented the provided definition when I have not. Even the definition from Caltech agrees with the one I provided, therefore your denial is rejected.
I acknowledge you reject the provided definition and that you now pretend that you know there is a 'thing' that acts.

Copy/paste to save time:
It would be an appeal to ignorance fallacy to attribute a mysterious or unexplained phenomenon (thing) to a specific conclusion (consciousness being independent) without sufficient evidence. It seems to me that all you have is a mystery to point at. I accept the mystery and am waiting on a valid reason to accept the conclusion you have provided.

Because I am conscious of my surroundings. It is consciousness which allows for me to be conscious of my surroundings.

That is circular and wrong and what's worse is that you seem to have forgotten all you learned about how we become aware of smells (something I already laid out for you).
You are not aware of smells because of consciousness, you are aware of smells because tiny odor molecules enter the nasal cavity and interact with specialized nerve cells, called olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs), located in the olfactory epithelium which then transmit signals to the brain. When this happens, you then become consciously aware of the smell. You might even ask what it is that you are smelling. Then you might wonder what is asking this question and then trick yourself into thinking something external is asking.

Then provide the evidence that any brain is capable of intent without consciousness.

I don't understand why I should, but in hopes you are actually going somewhere with this odd request:
The respiratory center in the brainstem automatically regulates breathing rate and depth based on factors like carbon dioxide levels in the blood. This ensures we breathe continuously, even during sleep.

As I noted in a previous post, I have made no claims that consciousness is internal OR external. My argument is simply that I am consciousness, which means I do not identify as a "brain".

This is not interesting and I wish I had not began this waste of time on you.
I acknowledge that you are conscious and wish not to debate such a thing.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #94]

...please tell us all about consciousness. Leave nothing out.

Why ask me when I have provided explanations from professionals...

Unfortunately the professional explanations are not telling us anything about consciousness let alone everything. Yes - they are giving opinions about what their observations may suggest, but that does not answer the question being asked.

I acknowledge you reject the provided definition

Indeed. Why should I accept any definition which is defined upon the basis of materialistic bias?

It seems to me that all you have is a mystery to point at. I accept the mystery...

GIven that no one has shown what consciousness is (suggesting is not the same thing) then we are wise to accept that consciousness is a mystery.

...something external...

Since I have not claimed consciousness is "external" (whatever that means) why don;t you drop that argument and focus on what I am actually arguing - or admit that you do not understand...

Then provide the evidence that any brain is capable of intent without consciousness.

I don't understand why I should,

It is because you claim or are pandering to those professionals who claim that the brain tricks.

The respiratory center in the brainstem automatically regulates breathing rate and depth based on factors like carbon dioxide levels in the blood. This ensures we breathe continuously, even during sleep.

We do you believe you are just the body, when it has been pointed out to you that such things do not require consciousness in order to function. The brain is able to work with a body in this manner without any consciousness being involved. You appear to be claiming that because it functions in this manner it therefore must be conscious. Indeed you even use the word "automatically" which tells us that no consciousness is required for such tasks.

No, your belief that you are the brain/body is based upon insufficient data which at best just "suggests" the things you believe about that.

I acknowledge that you are conscious and wish not to debate such a thing

You have failed to even leave the deadend you are in as a natural conclusion of the beliefs you hold on to.

I wish I had not began this ...

You can cease any time you chose...obviously you have failed to show the things you claim about the brain as being anything other than guesswork - profession guesswork but guesswork nonetheless.

[Clownboat]

My argument is simply that I am consciousness

Unfortunately the professional explanations are not telling us anything about consciousness let alone everything. Yes - they are giving opinions about what their observations may suggest, but that does not answer the question being asked.

I acknowledge that the provided information from our experts is not satisfactory for you. However, since your argument is simply that you are conscious, I take no issue with that and agree that you are conscious.

Indeed. Why should I accept any definition which is defined upon the basis of materialistic bias?

You should accept definitions because words have established meanings. Using words incorrectly will lead to confusion.

GIven that no one has shown what consciousness is (suggesting is not the same thing) then we are wise to accept that consciousness is a mystery.

I acknowledge that you reject the definition for consciousness that has been supplied. Perhaps that is why you find consciousness to be mysterious? However, your only argument is simply that you are consciousness and I take no issue with that and would like to not waste more of my time debating that you are conscious since we agree on the only thing you are arguing for (if we can believe you).

Since I have not claimed consciousness is "external" (whatever that means) why don;t you drop that argument and focus on what I am actually arguing - or admit that you do not understand...

As I already explained to you, you have been a complete waste of my time as we agree that you are conscious and that is your only argument.

It is because you claim or are pandering to those professionals who claim that the brain tricks.

I acknowledge that the information I provided to you from professionals seems to upset you. Your whining is not needed though because even if the professionals are correct, you are still conscious and that is the only thing you claim you are arguing for. Tricked or not, you are still conscious, so you have nothing to complain about.

We do you believe you are just the body, when it has been pointed out to you that such things do not require consciousness in order to function.

What am I if more than just a body? What other options are there for me to choose from? Oh wait, you are simply here to argue that you are conscious. On this we already agree.

The brain is able to work with a body in this manner without any consciousness being involved. You appear to be claiming that because it functions in this manner it therefore must be conscious. Indeed you even use the word "automatically" which tells us that no consciousness is required for such tasks.

You don't understand my argument then. However, I agree that you are conscious and would prefer not to discuss that you are conscious with you as I can't think of something less interesting to debate.

No, your belief that you are the brain/body is based upon insufficient data which at best just "suggests" the things you believe about that.

Whatever you want to claim William, it matters not. You are conscious, so we agree with your only argument.

You have failed to even leave the deadend you are in as a natural conclusion of the beliefs you hold on to.

I acknowledge this empty, un-evidence claim and am not impressed with it. I do acknowledge your consciousness though.

You can cease any time you chose...obviously you have failed to show the things you claim about the brain as being anything other than guesswork - profession guesswork but guesswork nonetheless.

I acknowledge your claim to some sort of failure on my part and trust you feel better having made it. I have no idea why you are complaining about the information I provided when your only argument is that you are conscious. Every piece of information I have provided so far does not negate the only thing you are here to argue. Therefore I find your complaints odd and misplaced.

Be well.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #96]

Be well.

You continue to misrepresent who I am and what I am saying.

Go well...

[AgnosticBoy]

I acknowledge that you find these provided possible explanations to be unsatisfactory.
Do you acknowledge how unsatisfactory 'thing' is as an explanation for justifying a belief that consciousness is independent from our brains?

I never offered an explanation or theory. I simply stated what the evidence involved. When someone has their eyes taped shut and yet they report having visual experiences of their external environment, then that is precisely the person being aware without using their brain and senses.

At least there are known, real world explanations for you to reject that could explain the Pam case.

People have brought up hypothetical explanations and use those to argue that they are more reasonable than the actual non-mainstream explanations. That happens a lot in debates involving the resurrection. THe problem with that though is that an explanation should account for all of the relevant data otherwise you may as well throw in some completely irrelevant explanation and say that's reasonable as well. Your explanations do not account for the data so it's not even a matter that we'd apply occam's razor to. Occam's Razor involves choosing between two explanations, where both explanations account for the data, at the least.

What explanations do we have for me to critique that could explain consciousness being independent of our brains?

Again, there are no explanations involved. It's an observation. The how and why are separate matters. It's not even a conclusion I'm drawin. When I say someone was aware without their brain and senses being involved, then I'm just describing what happened which is an observation.

Bottom line, I don't pretend to know what happened with Pam and I don't pretend to know that our consciousness comes independent from our brains. I only note that our brains are all that is required in order for us and other animals on this planet to be aware/conscious and how affecting our brains, does affect our consciousness as if the two were one in the same.

All of what you said can be true even if the brain was just a medium (not the medium, as in the one and only) for consciousness.

I think of the Pam Reynold's case as being more than some personal anecdote, but less than some rigorous scientific verification. As I mentioned, it counts for something and instead of dismissing, we should be looking for ways to make the evidence and study of such experiences even stronger and rigorous. If Pam was still alive (died in 2010), I'd keep interviewing her for more details to rule things out. Have a process in place for all patients who have had NDEs to be able to report it as soon as possible.

[Clownboat]

You continue to misrepresent who I am and what I am saying.

Go well...

Your argument is that you are conscious.

"My argument is simply that I am consciousness"

I acknowledge your argument, agree with it and continue to find such a claim not worthy of debate. I don't see how that is a misrepresentation.

[Clownboat]

I never offered an explanation or theory. I simply stated what the evidence involved. When someone has their eyes taped shut and yet they report having visual experiences of their external environment, then that is precisely the person being aware without using their brain and senses.

I challenge this claim. How is it that this person became aware if their brain and senses were not actually involved?
When you point to some unevidenced 'thing' that we have zero details about, I will remain unimpressed with such an explanation even though I think it would be really cool for our consciousness to be independent of our brains.

It seems that no one knows what happened with Pam if we are going to be honest. If our consciousness is independent from our brains and Pam is the only example you can provide (when I think there would be tens of thousands of such type events each year) then I will continue to find it wanting in order to justify external consciousness. I remain open to the idea though and actually want it to be true, but we do need more than this one anecdotal case. Surely you agree?

People have brought up hypothetical explanations and use those to argue that they are more reasonable than the actual non-mainstream explanations. That happens a lot in debates involving the resurrection. THe problem with that though is that an explanation should account for all of the relevant data otherwise you may as well throw in some completely irrelevant explanation and say that's reasonable as well. Your explanations do not account for the data so it's not even a matter that we'd apply occam's razor to. Occam's Razor involves choosing between two explanations, where both explanations account for the data, at the least.

I acknowledge that you reject the provided explanations that would explain Pam's case and note that my words remained unchallenged: "At least there are known, real world explanations for you to reject that could explain the Pam case." (You rejected them as expected).

What explanations do we have for me to critique that could explain consciousness being independent of our brains?

Again, there are no explanations involved. It's an observation. The how and why are separate matters. It's not even a conclusion I'm drawin. When I say someone was aware without their brain and senses being involved, then I'm just describing what happened which is an observation.

I'm sorry, but I'm skeptical of the anecdotal Pam case. As I have reasoned, if our consciousness is independent of our brains, we should see Pam examples taking place thousands of times a day all over the world. Heck, I've been rendered unconscious a few times and had no external consciousness. The Pam case doesn't have the legs you want it to have. I acknowledge that neither of us know what really happened though.

Bottom line, I don't pretend to know what happened with Pam and I don't pretend to know that our consciousness comes independent from our brains. I only note that our brains are all that is required in order for us and other animals on this planet to be aware/conscious and how affecting our brains, does affect our consciousness as if the two were one in the same.

All of what you said can be true even if the brain was just a medium (not the medium, as in the one and only) for consciousness.

I agree, but adding some 'thing' that is independent is not necessary. Consciousness emerging from our functioning brains is enough to explain why we are aware of our surroundings. I'm open to there being something external, but don't see a need for it.

I know that you reject anesthesia awareness as an explanation, but let's compare where you arrived to that of an anesthesiologist:
"An anesthesiologist who examined the case offered anesthesia awareness as a more prosaic and conventional explanation for such claims."

I think of the Pam Reynold's case as being more than some personal anecdote, but less than some rigorous scientific verification.

I don't think that and truly wish we were discussing consciousness and not this Pam case that leads us nowhere sadly (outside of not knowing for sure what really happened).

As I mentioned, it counts for something and instead of dismissing, we should be looking for ways to make the evidence and study of such experiences even stronger and rigorous.

However, we should dismiss the explanation from the anesthesiologist?

If Pam was still alive (died in 2010), I'd keep interviewing her for more details to rule things out. Have a process in place for all patients who have had NDEs to be able to report it as soon as possible.

You must admit that Pam become somewhat of a celebrity because of her report (Bob Lazar comes to mind), which would supply motive to maintain it. I'm sure glad that her dead grandmother and uncle escorted her back to the operating room though! In the end, Reynolds' story is just an anecdote.

Can you think of anything else that might point to consciousness being outside of our brains as the explanation?