Keith Augustine interview

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that suggests that consciousness is produced by the brain. There is a lot of evidence that consciousness may be influenced by the brain (and vice versa), as in: interactionist dualism. 

See: Why Materialists Do Not Have A Point

Well, that is not the only way to interpret the survival data, however. I am an idealist and I believe that materialism is disproven by the data. I also believe, obviously, that the state of our brain influences the state of our minds in everyday life.

However, if we listen to what NDErs are saying, it becomes clear that consciousness is all that exists, and that we are eternal beings, and that this entire physical universe is a simulated existence.

As such, everything is ultimately a product of our (and everybody else's, and the creator's) consciousness. So this shared dream we are currently participating in is just that, and the illusion of the material is just that. There is ultimately no matter, there is only the idea of matter, and the systematic manner in which this thought-created, thought-generated, and thought-sustained simulation behaves.

From a practical perspective it's certainly easy and useful to interpret survival being a fact as indicative of substance dualism, but it's bound to be realized as incorrect as the debate advances beyond the basics, as the centuries will go by and we move away from this whole "but is it really the case"-loop that the skeptics are throwing us in continuously now.

Idealism is compatible with what NDErs are saying, and it doesn't have the interactionist problem raised by Descartes centuries ago.

I think I'm also baffled but about what precisely is the point you are making. Are you claiming that the whole story - including the details of what happened during her surgery - was fed to her at various times after she regained consciousness?

There are plenty of times information could've been passed on: before surgery, as she recovered, after she became fully conscious.

Hasn't this been dismissed by the hospital staff already? 

How could it be, reliably?

Additionally, you seem to be suggesting that, human psychology being what it is, the doctors were seeking a little fame by association. Common sense tells me that it is highly unlikely that they would all participate in some elaborate confabulation - especially concerning a subject matter that doctors usually avoid or treat with a certain arrogant disdain.

I don't think the doctors have pushed themselves forward excessively. Greene had to be tracked down and interviewed by someone who has, in this very thread, shown himself to have a worldview to support when presenting this story.

Otherwise, your argument seems to be that the whole story is unlikely because you have, in your own mind, reconstructed the timeline and what was likely to have been said by whom along that timeline and you don't find your own reconstruction convincing enough to make Pam's story credible. And all of this reconstruction was done from what you remember being discussed at Skeptiko and on this forum - isn't that so?

My sources include these sites, external links, other searches, and other studies I have undertaken, including the evidence that makes human sensory activity without a human sensory system very tricky. I have read a lot around the case and watched and listened to interviews with Pam etc. I'm unesay about her account being  sacrosanct scripture but equally queasy over some of the debunking attempts. Despite my misgivings about reading a book with its own titular conclusion, I may have to fork out for "The Self Does Not Die". Anyone, will it clear anything up? Is there a better source I should be reading?

The anecdote, understandably, has grown over the years. I've heard Pam tell her story over 30 minutes or more and her she has been very keen to transmit the wonder of the experience. Is anyone suggesting that is how it was presented at the moment of full consciousness regained while Dr Greene, who happened to be present, listened in awe? These stories mature on the retelling, we know this.

How could it be, reliably?


The anecdote, understandably, has grown over the years. I've heard Pam tell her story over 30 minutes or more and her she has been very keen to transmit the wonder of the experience. Is anyone suggesting that is how it was presented at the moment of full consciousness regained while Dr Greene, who happened to be present, listened in awe? These stories mature on the retelling, we know this.

I wonder whether you wonder why Pam's account is so similar to others from around the world and throughout history. I'm talking NDEs in general, not just her surgery circumstances. This is the one thing about the sceptical approach that I can only put down to dogmatism: that they must all be delusional or fabrications - not a single seemingly verifiable case can be allowed. I seem to have to make the point over and over but it is this: Pam's story is not sacrosanct and I believe that the debunkers have had their day but it is just one of many. There's Anita Moorjani, for example. Another story with doctors, nurses and family all likewise amazed by the wonder of her experience. I guess her doctors were also stretching the truth to promote a worldview you happen to dislike? Tim could probably reel off a dozen in a couple of minutes. Again, it is the sheer wealth of evidence that you are attempting to undermine with nit-picking and speculation and, despite your claims to be wary of debunking tactics, that is a typical debunking tactic.

Are you seriously expecting us to believe that if this were some evidence in any other field of inquiry the same accusations of collusion, delusion and deception would be levelled at ALL the witnesses? That they and those who interviewed them ALL had a worldview to defend? Doctors, nurses, parapsychologists, scientific researchers - you name it - have all reported these phenomena and yet there are thousands still unexplained in terms you would find acceptable. Perhaps that's because the only explanation you will accept is one where the chance of story-fabrication is accepted as most likely. 

By the way, I think there has been some research to confirm this - again, Tim might know more - but I recall that NDE survivors tend to remember the precise details for the rest of their lives. This is in contrast to most other experiences which, as you say, change or grow in the retelling over many years. That detail also mitigates against the claim that Pam was fed this information piecemeal after the event. The very clarity is evidence of vivid memories rather than hearsay and incidental chatter.

Well, that is not the only way to interpret the survival data, however. I am an idealist and I believe that materialism is disproven by the data. I also believe, obviously, that the state of our brain influences the state of our minds in everyday life.

However, if we listen to what NDErs are saying, it becomes clear that consciousness is all that exists, and that we are eternal beings, and that this entire physical universe is a simulated existence.

As such, everything is ultimately a product of our (and everybody else's, and the creator's) consciousness. So this shared dream we are currently participating in is just that, and the illusion of the material is just that. There is ultimately no matter, there is only the idea of matter, and the systematic manner in which this thought-created, thought-generated, and thought-sustained simulation behaves.

From a practical perspective it's certainly easy and useful to interpret survival being a fact as indicative of substance dualism, but it's bound to be realized as incorrect as the debate advances beyond the basics, as the centuries will go by and we move away from this whole "but is it really the case"-loop that the skeptics are throwing us in continuously now.

Idealism is compatible with what NDErs are saying, and it doesn't have the interactionist problem raised by Descartes centuries ago.

Just two points: 

- How can a brain that is only a simulation have a real effect on our consciousness? It obviously cannot, because it does not really exist. Which would mean that for example Alzheimer patients don't experience the effects of a real brain on their minds, but only the effects of their idea of a brain on their minds. If that is true, then Alzheimer should disappear as soon as one accepts that the brain is just an illusion. There would be no real difference anymore between somatogenic dementia and psychogenic pseudo-dementia, in which cognitive functions such as retrieving memories get impaired by psychological factors. 

How come then that even idealists can become the victims of this nasty Alzheimer's disease? Do you really believe somatogenic mental handicaps are just based on illusions?

- You may say idealism doesn't have the interactionist problem, but this comes at a huge cost. From an intuitive perspective it is very hard to believe that the physical world is just a projection of the mind (unlike the afterlife, which seems to respond much more directly to what's happening in our minds). Idealism goes against this basic intuition that the physical world is really external to our minds, which makes it much harder to accept than interactionism, for anyone who shares that intuition anyway.

Idealism seems to have become the default position within non-dogmatic spiritual circles, but I think idealists need to acknowledge that idealism is rather counter-intuitive.

I'm afraid a lot of the time this place is far too tribal.

I feel like this response is totally unjustified by what's gone on in the last few pages of this thread.

I tend to agree with you that just providing a cite to exactly what it is that supports a certain statement is certainly the best way to go for all involved, lurkers included. But this case is a well known one, and also one that has been discussed ad nauseum both here and at Skeptiko. I'm sure malf had seen a large portion of that discussion, if not having actually participated. It also tends to be one of the touchiest NDEs, obviously, for both sides. So I don't know how fair it is to call all of PQ "tribal" over that alone.

I'm afraid a lot of the time this place is far too tribal.

LOL, if you are looking for tribal here, go look at the Trump thread. Only there, malf and I are in the same tribe.

I wonder whether you wonder why Pam's account is so similar to others from around the world and throughout history. I'm talking NDEs in general, not just her surgery circumstances. This is the one thing about the sceptical approach that I can only put down to dogmatism: that they must all be delusional or fabrications - not a single seemingly verifiable case can be allowed. I seem to have to make the point over and over but it is this: Pam's story is not sacrosanct and I believe that the debunkers have had their day but it is just one of many. There's Anita Moorjani, for example. Another story with doctors, nurses and family all likewise amazed by the wonder of her experience. I guess her doctors were also stretching the truth to promote a worldview you happen to dislike? Tim could probably reel off a dozen in a couple of minutes. Again, it is the sheer wealth of evidence that you are attempting to undermine with nit-picking and speculation and, despite your claims to be wary of debunking tactics, that is a typical debunking tactic.

Are you seriously expecting us to believe that if this were some evidence in any other field of inquiry the same accusations of collusion, delusion and deception would be levelled at ALL the witnesses? That they and those who interviewed them ALL had a worldview to defend? Doctors, nurses, parapsychologists, scientific researchers - you name it - have all reported these phenomena and yet there are thousands still unexplained in terms you would find acceptable. Perhaps that's because the only explanation you will accept is one where the chance of story-fabrication is accepted as most likely. 

By the way, I think there has been some research to confirm this - again, Tim might know more - but I recall that NDE survivors tend to remember the precise details for the rest of their lives. This is in contrast to most other experiences which, as you say, change or grow in the retelling over many years. That detail also mitigates against the claim that Pam was fed this information piecemeal after the event. The very clarity is evidence of vivid memories rather than hearsay and incidental chatter.

There appears something special about this case (and perhaps a handful of others) which has resulted in so much attention, and continues to do so even almost 30 years later. 

But nothing I’ve talked about need be exclusive to this case. I’m fascinated in the genesis and development of these stories, which are happening very much in the human domain.

I can think of little as emotionally charged, and spiritually disarming, as being in a near death situation. That a species whose entire cultural history is centered around story telling trades anecdotes around these experiences is understandable; the stakes couldn’t be higher! A glimpse of heaven? I understand the seduction, and the innate impulse to respect the story and the storyteller.

AWARE understands this, and is trying to strip all that away. That's what will move the evidence into a different class. 

Excuse my ignorance, but when and how did Pam’s story first enter the public domain? Is there any contemporary articles or books or tv shows that triggered the legend?

LOL, if you are looking for tribal here, go look at the Trump thread. Only there, malf and I are in the same tribe.

For some reason the Trump lovers are a little quieter than usual

There appears something special about this case (and perhaps a handful of others) which has resulted in so much attention, and continues to do so even almost 30 years later. 

But nothing I’ve talked about need be exclusive to this case. I’m fascinated in the genesis and development of these stories, which are happening very much in the human domain.

I can think of little as emotionally charged, and spiritually disarming, as being in a near death situation. That a species whose entire cultural history is centered around story telling trades anecdotes around these experiences is understandable; the stakes couldn’t be higher! A glimpse of heaven? I understand the seduction, and the innate impulse to respect the story and the storyteller.

AWARE understands this, and us trying to strip all that away. That's what will move the evidence into a different class. 

Excuse my ignorance, but when and how did Pam’s story first enter the public domain? Is there any contemporary articles or books or tv shows that triggered the legend?

Maybe it's a good idea that you first study the case. It's widely available, including in The Self Does Not Die. Laziness is no excuse for wasting other people's time! If you study the case, you'll find out why it was/is considered so important. Our book is an excellent starting point. The case was not just another legend, like that of Sarah Gideon. - 

Skeptics must be so used to (their own) disinformation that they think that is all there is to case studies.

Maybe it's a good idea that you first study the case. It's widely available, including in The Self Does Not Die. Laziness is no excuse for wasting other people's time! If you study the case, you'll find out why it was/is considered so important. Our book is an excellent starting point. The case was not just another legend, like that of Sarah Gideon. - 

Skeptics must be so used to (their own) disinformation that they think that is all there is to case studies.

This is fair enough. I’m staring at my kindle wondering whether to splash the cash  I’m concerned that the book may be a very ‘one eyed’ approach, and your demeanour in this thread hasn’t eased that concern.

Does the book come with a list of references for each case? What’s the earliest source you have for Pam’s claim?

Any other NDE scholars out there... I’m looking for the earliest time it percolated into the public arena.