Oh boy. *I* said that your "gravity" diversion was a red herring. You brought up the "do we know how gravity works" thing in what seems like an attempt to distract from or dodge the question (which as I recall wasn't specifically aimed at you originally as you'd been off the site for a while) about how the "spirit" and "body" interact. (Hint: It ain't gravitationally.)
As for the rest of your post I see no point in responding to it, nor do I find any value in "discussion" with you at this point.
I never seen you adress any of the examples which more or less prove that the consciousness cannot be a process of the brain. Van lommel and others look at all of the potential hypothesis in brain chemistry and they simply cannot explain veridical NDE. Consciousness of procedures, remote places , conversations, during death, other people, when the brain is shutdown.
Its true. Sabom tried (indeed val lommel in longitudinal studies) tried putting "targets" in some of the operating theatres. But the absence of noting the targets means nothing. He points out that most cardiac arrests occur and treated elsehwere - so not amenable to that, but also the "focus" of the experiences is also elsewhere. Few remark on the specific theatre layouts, they remark on the procedures and conversations taking place during them. Also of remote places. Things the unconscious (essentially brain dead) patient can ever have known or guessed at.
Read them. An easy book to start is Laurin Bellg Death in ICU.
. "the self does not die" lists veridical experiences which are the most interesting.
Van lommel did longitudinal studies, and studies brain chemistry. Wrote papers in lancet.
NDE is far more frequent than criticics guess. It cannot be explained by residual brain function, so neither can consciousness.
I had not realised till I read those books.
1/ How cardiac arrests are normally fatal because the brain shuts down so quickly, and there are only minutes before damage is permanent,
2/ or that manual compression achieves some improvement but does not altar the general outcome that cardiac arrest is mostly fatal.
3/ that a significant proportion 15-20% of those back from the brink note an NDE. Its bigger than I thought
Before modelling the evidence itself needs assembling. And the evidence is king. Whether or not it fits present models. Or indeed whether it can be modelled (ie correlated)
Van lommel notes there is no correlation between any of the obvious factors you might think affected NDE, related to patient type, drugs or treatment type.
