Keith Augustine interview

Here it is: http://godlesshaven.com/ep-9-is-there-an...augustine/

Three things stand out to me. First of all, he says that the Pam Reynolds case is touted the most as the best individual NDE report that provide evidence of survival. While this was certainly true a decade ago, is the situation the same today? It might very well be, and I'm asking all of you here. Because at least in my view of things, the clear winner in that regard is the semi-hit in the AWARE study. In that case, we know that the person had their NDE during cardiac arrest, and so we know that their brain was not expected to be functioning when the person made the accurate and verified OBE observations. Pam Reynolds on the other hand, as Keith demonstrates when writing on the topic, actually had a (somewhat) functioning brain while she made her accurate and verified OBE observations, as they occurred long before she was flat-lined. So are survivalists still clinging to the Pam Reynolds case even though the semi-hit in the AWARE study is what actually made Sam Parnia himself change his mind?

As a side note on that topic, I haven't read his book, and maybe someone else here has. Does he or any other contributor in that book comment on this semi-hit in the AWARE study there?

Secondly, he's saying that cross-cultural reports of NDEs do not count as valid if the person is reporting their NDE on a survey that is related to the west and written in English. I've never heard of such reasoning before - do you think this is a valid reasoning? Is there similar requirements in other disciplines that study things cross-culturally? I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm just genuinely wondering. 

Thirdly, he continues to have a very crude understanding of the transmission theory, and see it as a very one-dimensional dynamic going on. Chris Carter has pointed this out to him before and even written about it extensively in his second book, but it appears that Keith Augustine still doesn't want to seriously consider the more charitable interpretations of this theory. Why is that the case? Why does he insist that the mountains of evidence for the exceedingly intricate relationship between mental states and brain states in everyday life somehow count against the transmission theory, when all of that evidence is explicitly predicted by it?

That our cognitive experience as humans is closely interwoven with the on-goings in the brain is no more indicative that the mind couldn't function without the brain than the fact that our human body is closely connected with our ability to move around. Just like people can't think very good when their brain is compromised, people can't move around when their body is compromised. And yet, just like our cognitive abilities expand exponentially in an NDE, so does our ability to move around. You can be mentally handicapped as a human being, and yet, as NDErs report, you can understand absolutely everything and have a complete panoramic life review with access to all information simultaneously when you stop the role-playing exercise of being a human. In the same way, you can be in a wheelchair here while you're role-playing as a human, and yet, as some NDErs report, once you're out of the body you can fly around like Peter Pan faster than the speed of light in every direction simultaneously. 

So to say that you can't think without a brain is about as impressive as saying that you can't move around without a body, since while you are role-playing as a human your ability to move around is contingent on the state of your body and your ability to think is contingent on the state of your brain. But once you leave those confines, why should either your brain or your body have an impact on your ability to think or to move around anymore? You are no longer role-playing as a human being.

Here it is: http://godlesshaven.com/ep-9-is-there-an...augustine/

Three things stand out to me. First of all, he says that the Pam Reynolds case is touted the most as the best individual NDE report that provide evidence of survival. While this was certainly true a decade ago, is the situation the same today? It might very well be, and I'm asking all of you here. Because at least in my view of things, the clear winner in that regard is the semi-hit in the AWARE study. In that case, we know that the person had their NDE during cardiac arrest, and so we know that their brain was not expected to be functioning when the person made the accurate and verified OBE observations. Pam Reynolds on the other hand, as Keith demonstrates when writing on the topic, actually had a (somewhat) functioning brain while she made her accurate and verified OBE observations, as they occurred long before she was flat-lined. So are survivalists still clinging to the Pam Reynolds case even though the semi-hit in the AWARE study is what actually made Sam Parnia himself change his mind?

As a side note on that topic, I haven't read his book, and maybe someone else here has. Does he or any other contributor in that book comment on this semi-hit in the AWARE study there?

Secondly, he's saying that cross-cultural reports of NDEs do not count as valid if the person is reporting their NDE on a survey that is related to the west and written in English. I've never heard of such reasoning before - do you think this is a valid reasoning? Is there similar requirements in other disciplines that study things cross-culturally? I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm just genuinely wondering. 

Thirdly, he continues to have a very crude understanding of the transmission theory, and see it as a very one-dimensional dynamic going on. Chris Carter has pointed this out to him before and even written about it extensively in his second book, but it appears that Keith Augustine still doesn't want to seriously consider the more charitable interpretations of this theory. Why is that the case? Why does he insist that the mountains of evidence for the exceedingly intricate relationship between mental states and brain states in everyday life somehow count against the transmission theory, when all of that evidence is explicitly predicted by it?

That our cognitive experience as humans is closely interwoven with the on-goings in the brain is no more indicative that the mind couldn't function without the brain than the fact that our human body is closely connected with our ability to move around. Just like people can't think very good when their brain is compromised, people can't move around when their body is compromised. And yet, just like our cognitive abilities expand exponentially in an NDE, so does our ability to move around. You can be mentally handicapped as a human being, and yet, as NDErs report, you can understand absolutely everything and have a complete panoramic life review with access to all information simultaneously when you stop the role-playing exercise of being a human. In the same way, you can be in a wheelchair here while you're role-playing as a human, and yet, as some NDErs report, once you're out of the body you can fly around like Peter Pan faster than the speed of light in every direction simultaneously. 

So to say that you can't think without a brain is about as impressive as saying that you can't move around without a body, since while you are role-playing as a human your ability to move around is contingent on the state of your body and your ability to think is contingent on the state of your brain. But once you leave those confines, why should either your brain or your body have an impact on your ability to think or to move around anymore? You are no longer role-playing as a human being.

Hi, Hjortron

Keith Augustine's statements about the state of Pam Reynolds brain (when she heard the conversation and saw the bone saw) are completely wrong. At that time she was in a barbiturate coma with flat brain waves. The surgeons have told us this and it's all outlined and published in Rivas, Dirven and Smit's book, "The Self does not die." 

Keith is talking rubbish, that's all there is to it. I emailed him several years ago and told him this and his reply was...."I don't believe what doctors tell me." (Spetzler and Greene who conducted the operation).

He does, however believe Dr Woerlee's ideas about the case, who was not even there. Terrible behaviour.

It is not hard to see where Augustine is coming from and it is clearly not from open-minded consideration of the evidence. According to his Internet Infidels website, he is on a "mission" to "defend and promote" a worldview.

Our Mission

The Secular Web is owned and operated by Internet Infidels, Inc., a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview on the Internet.

Here it is: http://godlesshaven.com/ep-9-is-there-an...augustine/

Three things stand out to me. First of all, he says that the Pam Reynolds case is touted the most as the best individual NDE report that provide evidence of survival. While this was certainly true a decade ago, is the situation the same today? It might very well be, and I'm asking all of you here. Because at least in my view of things, the clear winner in that regard is the semi-hit in the AWARE study. In that case, we know that the person had their NDE during cardiac arrest, and so we know that their brain was not expected to be functioning when the person made the accurate and verified OBE observations. Pam Reynolds on the other hand, as Keith demonstrates when writing on the topic, actually had a (somewhat) functioning brain while she made her accurate and verified OBE observations, as they occurred long before she was flat-lined. So are survivalists still clinging to the Pam Reynolds case even though the semi-hit in the AWARE study is what actually made Sam Parnia himself change his mind?

As a side note on that topic, I haven't read his book, and maybe someone else here has. Does he or any other contributor in that book comment on this semi-hit in the AWARE study there?

Secondly, he's saying that cross-cultural reports of NDEs do not count as valid if the person is reporting their NDE on a survey that is related to the west and written in English. I've never heard of such reasoning before - do you think this is a valid reasoning? Is there similar requirements in other disciplines that study things cross-culturally? I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm just genuinely wondering. 

Thirdly, he continues to have a very crude understanding of the transmission theory, and see it as a very one-dimensional dynamic going on. Chris Carter has pointed this out to him before and even written about it extensively in his second book, but it appears that Keith Augustine still doesn't want to seriously consider the more charitable interpretations of this theory. Why is that the case? Why does he insist that the mountains of evidence for the exceedingly intricate relationship between mental states and brain states in everyday life somehow count against the transmission theory, when all of that evidence is explicitly predicted by it?

That our cognitive experience as humans is closely interwoven with the on-goings in the brain is no more indicative that the mind couldn't function without the brain than the fact that our human body is closely connected with our ability to move around. Just like people can't think very good when their brain is compromised, people can't move around when their body is compromised. And yet, just like our cognitive abilities expand exponentially in an NDE, so does our ability to move around. You can be mentally handicapped as a human being, and yet, as NDErs report, you can understand absolutely everything and have a complete panoramic life review with access to all information simultaneously when you stop the role-playing exercise of being a human. In the same way, you can be in a wheelchair here while you're role-playing as a human, and yet, as some NDErs report, once you're out of the body you can fly around like Peter Pan faster than the speed of light in every direction simultaneously. 

So to say that you can't think without a brain is about as impressive as saying that you can't move around without a body, since while you are role-playing as a human your ability to move around is contingent on the state of your body and your ability to think is contingent on the state of your brain. But once you leave those confines, why should either your brain or your body have an impact on your ability to think or to move around anymore? You are no longer role-playing as a human being.

1. The assertion that Pam Reynolds is the best case is definitely a matter of opinion, and definitely not one shared unanimously by everyone besides Augustine. 

2. I know several NDE researchers have comment on it, including specifically in response to Keith's point about it. It was in the Journal of Near Death Studies years ago

3. He and Woerlee both apparently have rather crude understandings of the model for sure, and have passed it on to their readers fresh to the subject

Forgetting about the afterlife stuff (I don't personally believe NDE's say anything for or against an afterlife - but I do believe that it's likely some type-of-experience may follow my death)... and ignoring Augustine's philosophy arguments, because I think they are pretty much irrelevant.

Maria's shoe *is* an interesting case, more interesting than Pam's experience in my opinion. The skeptic debunking of it really only dealt with the claims that something left Maria's body (i.e. floaty eyes) to see a shoe that could not have been seen from any position (i.e. it was hidden). The later research shows that the shoe could have been seen. How Maria got to see it (how she obtained that information) is a much greater puzzle. But again it's not a water-tight case, it's just indicative of something potentially interesting that deserves further investigation.

Pam's OBE is interesting too though... but the period of time which she recalled, actually occurs *before* she's drained of blood... the area of dispute really revolves around whether she was (or was not) already in burst suppression during this period of time... it's claimed in the recently published book Tim refers to that she was, but I still don't think that's clear.

Spetzler didn't actually know he was going to need to use the cooling/blood-draining procedure on Pam until later. It's only after he opened Pam's scull, and saw the huge size of the aneurysm that a decision was made to use that procedure. That throws some weight behind the idea that she wasn't in burst suppression in my opinion. My investigations found written evidence that Burst Suppression is not induced until later during this procedure. But, I also found contradictory evidence that suggested that inducing Burst Suppression, right from the outset, was/is considered useful for it's neuro-protective properties, and may have been considered good practice. Who knows whether she was or wasn't in burst suppression at that time? Again it's not a water-tight case.

We don't have any water-tight cases, but I still think there is sufficient volumes of evidence overall to suggest that it's 'very likely' that something new, and very interesting is going on, and that it's probably exposing some hugely important feature about how the brain works, that we are currently unaware of.

I don't think anything leaves the body during these classic NDE OBE's. I think we would understand it as compatible signals coming from outside of the patients body, which can temporarily synchronize the network of a powered down brain. This allows the patient to experience/recall (get access to) information from compatible localized signal sources that it has become synchronized to (third parties etc). It's a small window of vulnerability that has been exposed, but it's exposure suggests that conscious experience itself depends on a further, and very different, and much deeper fundamental mechanism - quantum coherent interference - whereby experience itself arises out of the adding-up (addition) of patterns of - what we would understand as - matching patterns of space-like and time-like separations, completely irrespective of how distant in spacetime they are. But they are still going to be restricted within the light-cone.

So they could be millions of years ago, or millions of light years away, but if they are compatible, and matching, they can be added up by us. I also think we can add up as yet unrealised patterns with absolutely no penalty (we can check out how they add up, and choose the strongest - or perhaps not). These unrealised patterns, would be patterns that exist in what we would think of as the future. And that what we think as choice (whatever that is) may be hiding there, between what we think of as the past and the unrealised future. This would be a way for us to navigate through spacetime, rather like the way we think about navigating through space (walking into the kitchen to make a cup of coffee). I think this ability is hidden in emotions and feelings, but that these (senses?) can be clouded by choice (what we want/ego), and/or overwhelmed by past experiences. But that is useful too, because we can simply fire and forget, and allow past experiences to simply take over and run us, whilst we're concentrating on the unexpected/no experience/choice stuff.

I think emotions and feelings indicate coherence (adding up) of matching patterns spreading out across spacetime, for example we can look at a row of cakes in a confectioners cabinet (different patterns), and sense which pattern will make us feel best in the future. I mean you can feel yourself doing it, allowing yourself to play through the cake patterns, and selecting what feels best. It's not perfect though, because all our past patterns can simply overwhelm (by adding up) what we might have normally felt to be the best future choice. These past patterns which we add up are not just ours. Although we are normally going to be most compatible with our own patterns, because they match us, so we naturally favor adding these up, because they are ours and closely match our present patterns. But also add up all the other matching patterns, from parents, ancestors, friends and partners etc we've adapted our networks to, so that we become more compatible with their patterns. And so on.

I think this sort of brief idea completely explains my life, and all my experiences here, at least I've not found anything to date which it does not explain. However why I'm having this experience remains unknown, I only know I'm contributing to and building up patterns.

I find this incredibly frustrating, Max, because I've explained the circumstances of this case to you before. Me, but mainly researchers Rivas and Smit, consulted the surgeons who conducted the operation. What more can be done to establish the facts ? 
Who knows what occurred better than Spetzler and his assistants ?

Max said > Spetzler didn't actually know he was going to need to use the cooling/blood-draining procedure on Pam until later. It's only after he opened Pam's scull, and saw the huge size of the aneurysm that a decision was made to use that procedure. That throws some weight behind the idea that she wasn't in burst suppression in my opinion"

What I'm explaining (again) here is fact, therefore I'm sorry but your 'opinion' is irrelevant, Max.  It's true that Spetzler didn't know if hypothermic standstill (the blood drained and heart stopped) was going to be needed, until he got down underneath her brain to actually closely inspect the bulge in the artery (at the base of her brain in the Circle of Willis).
However, cooling (not the bypass) had already begun because she (the patient) is laid on an "ice bed" and cold saline is infused while the room temperature is lowered. This brings the temperature down to 33 degrees C at the time her skull was opened.

From Spetzler's paper : http://ether.stanford.edu/library/neuroa...reated.pdf

"Surface cooling is initiated by lowering the ambient room temperature, placing the patient on a cooling blanket, and infusing cold saline intravenously."

Opening the skull to get down underneath the brain (apparently) involves removing the roof of the eye and more. At such a time and with such a brutal procedure (including all the rest of the procedures that are 'inflicted' on the patient's body), the patient has to be completely comatose so that they cannot wake up. To achieve this they are given massive amounts of barbiturates which not only shut down the brain (get rid of the brain waves) they provide "protection" for the brain cells (neurons) when they will be deprived of blood (if it's required) at the standstill part of the operation.

At Barrow, (Neurological institute) this suppressing of the brain waves (burst suppression)  is already achieved when the skull is opened. Spetzler told us this and it's also in his published paper here.

From Spetzler's paper > "Our experience with profound hypothermia and circulatory arrest indicates that pre-arrest, precooling administration of barbiturates (thiopental) in quantities sufficient to maintain burst suppression of EEG activity has not been deleterious and probably has improved cerebral protection."

Other subsequent practitioners of hypothermic standstill do NOT seek to achieve burst suppression early (before by-pass cooling) but Spetzler did. In addition to the brainwave suppressing barbiturates, she was also 4-5 degrees lower in temperature entering the zone of hypothermia. And with every degree of cooling, 5-10 % of brain function is lost even without barbiturates.

In addition, Titus Rivas was able to contact Karl Greene (the then junior surgeon) and was informed that Pam's brain was EEG monitored all the way through the operation and (for the anaesthesiologist) to ignore on-going EEG activity (brainwaves) during surgical procedures placed practitioners at the risk of malpractice (a law suit) 

Will you now accept these facts, Max ?

You've just agreed with my short summary. I don't think we can get any further removing doubts about Pam's case until Spetzler wades into the argument himself, and provides evidence whether Pam was/was not in burst suppression during the period of her recollection. I've read all the evidence of Pam's case, and it's still not settled enough for me to say that she was highly likely to have been put into Burst Suppression immediately. I tend to be pretty fair with my judgements, and that's what the evidence says to me. If the evidence says something different to you, good for you. Personally speaking, I think there are better cases, like Maria's shoe.

Max said > "You've just agreed with my short summary."

How in the blazes do you come to that conclusion ? That is unbelieveable, Max.

Max said > "I don't think we can get any further removing doubts about Pam's case until Spetzler wades into the argument himself, and provides evidence whether Pam was/was not in burst suppression during the period of her recollection"

What do you mean until Spetzler wades into the argument ? He's already waded in up to his neck, for heavens sake. He's made statement after statement. Smithy received the same information... that she was under burst suppression.

 @ the Mods.

This is a science forum where facts are surely preferred to hearsay and speculation. I don't think Max's comments should be allowed to stand, personally without being called out. I don't want to make a massive deal out of this but if someone is saying something that plainly isn't correct, isn't it fair game to call bullshit ?

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Tim.
Right now I don't have time to get into this, but hope to do so shortly.
In any case, Max's opinion has no ground whatsoever.

Smithy

[Ninshub]

 @ the Mods.

This is a science forum where facts are surely preferred to hearsay and speculation. I don't think Max's comments should be allowed to stand, personally without being called out. I don't want to make a massive deal out of this but if someone is saying something that plainly isn't correct, isn't it fair game to call bullshit ?

Hi tim, the policy is that the mods don't evaluate people's affirmations on whether they're wrong or right or based on facts rather than speculation, and unfortunately yes that opens the door to frustration, but of course members are free to yell out "Bullshit"!