General anesthesia and consciousness

[stevevw]

No, I'm not going to investigate each and every example you throw up. Knock them back and show they are worthless and you'll simply throw a few more into the mix.

I have never thrown any examples up to you and yet you were quick to dismiss them. I used more than one example because each had a different piece of evidence like the difference between a NDE'er describing a room they are actually in and a scene miles away which would seem hard to do even when conscious. But you could have chosen to just address one of them.

Pick the very best one you know of. Give us the links. One that can be investigated and isn't simply she said, he said, someone said. Pick the very best one and if it's no good then every single one that's not as good will be discounted. You said you have thousands to choose from so there must be some really good examples somewhere.

Let's hear about it. Whenever you are ready, post the links and we'll look at it. But it must be the one that you consider to be the very best one. I'll be here waiting.

Lol, I was not thinking of a best one as they all seemed pretty credible. Lets go with the first one if you want. I already gave the links. But I am not sure what you mean by 'he said, she said. These are testimonies of people having an experience and the witnesses to those events. So its all about what they said. We cannot go inside a persons head to see their experience as a investigator.

We often use first person testimonies as evdience so the same should apply for NDE. So its a case of whether you believe the fist hand testimonies. Whether you believe that the NDE'ers believe that this actually happened to them. This doesn't prove that they actually met deceased people or went to some heavenly place. But at least it recognises the realness of the experiences the people are saying they had. If we can't even get to that point then how else can we investigate things further.

 

[stevevw]

If you've been following this thread for a while then you've probably noticed that when it comes to NDE's I have a high degree of skepticism for anecdotal accounts. Give me one verified account and I'll be tickled pink, but so far nobody has been able to do that.

The examples I gave are verified examples and not just anecdotal accounts. But what the verified accounts do is that they lend support for the many anecdotal accounts that are 'exactly the same' as also possibly having some substance.

The problem I see is that even with verified support that the NDE'ers account matches with witness accounts skeptics will still dismiss things. They can still say that everyone just imagined it was real, or exaggerated what actually happened or just not believe people. Thats because we cannot see for ourselves if this happened and there will never be a way of doing that.

But this is part of the problem with the different paradigm positions each side takes. If a persons belief is that there is nothing transcedent of the material world then nothing is going to convince them. They will always see these type of things a woo.

And I'm sorry, but here's where I'm going to say something that you're absolutely not going to like. I don't consider veridical NDE's to be verified accounts. In fact, I consider the testimony of the doctors and nurses to be just as much anecdotal as the patient's account is.

Now this may seem extremely biased and presumptive of me,

Yes it is extremely biased and presumptive no buts about it.

but it's based upon years of experience with normal human memory and behavior. We rarely remember things in the same way that they actually happened, and retelling them to others with whom we shared the experience often only serves to make the problem worse. We inadvertently incorporate their memories into ours, to the point that we can no longer distinguish between them. Instead the two accounts, which may have started out dissimilar eventually grow to be quite complementary.

Yeah there is some of that which happens. But we also accept an aweful lot of the retelling of stories which actually happened. But the fact that humans may sometimes if not often get the story wrong is not an arguement against the possibility that the events are exactly how they happened.

I mean some of these cases are pretty straight forward and theres not that much to get wrong. A patient who has been verified as dead, unreponsive describes what the doctors and nurses were doing at that time and the doctors and nurses acknowledging that is exactly what we were doing is not too much to remember. Besides its start to cast a wide net of undermining everyone involved like they all got it wrong. I think you will find we often accept first hand experiences as tru in everyday life.

I can understand if you discount this argument, but let me give you an analogy. Let's say that someone goes to see a clairvoyant who claims to be able to talk to the dead. The clairvoyant may begin with something very innocuous, like I'm seeing a man, his first name begins with an 'M' or an 'N'. It's either Mike, or Mark, or Nick... to which someone in the crowd will hold up their hand and say yes...Mike. To which the clairvoyant will say... he's an uncle, or a grandfather? And the audience member will reply grandfather. Now the exchange can go on like this for quite some time with the clairvoyant judiciously drawing out more and more information about the audience member's dearly departed, until at the end of the evening the audience member will be amazed at how much the clairvoyant knew about their poor deceased grandfather. Now you and I both know that this is a trick. The clairvoyant is simply following the lines of questioning that elicit a positive response, and disregarding those that don't. It looks totally inexplicable to the receptive person, but absolutely ridiculous to the skeptic.

But some NDE are not anything like this and perhaps that reveals something of the skeptic mind in that they seem to stereotype these things in simplistic terms. They have a preset framework that is totally unreal as to what actually happens.

Some NDE would be like the clairvoyant not guessing but actually being specific. Like naming the deceased, who they are and some specific message or event associated. If a clairvoyant was able to be that specific I think it would shock the audience. Of course skeptics will still say theres some trickery involved because thats their default position.

This isn't to say that in the case of NDE's either the doctor or the patient is deliberately trying to fabricate a more spectacular story, it's just that in the normal process of sharing their own perspectives the two stories meld into one, and the result seems absolutely irrefutable. Until someone makes a claim about a red shoe that isn't correct, to which the believer will simply disregard it and continue to focus on the things that haven't been refuted.

Sure people can exaggerate and even make stuff up. But what about the straight forward cases just based on the facts. Patient X was clinically dead or unconscious at the time they described events they could not have known. What people forgeet is that we can seperate NDE into two categories if you like.

One is the events happened factually. The other is what those events represent which is something harder to verify. But admitting the events factually happened is not acknowledging that NDE is real. It allows scientists to them deal with what happened by admitting they happened. If they can't do that then we don't get past finding out what is going on. If these events are denied to have even happened then all arguement stops.

It's a form of argument that's almost impossible to defeat because the true believer will simply move on to the next example, and the next one, and the next one... It's like trying to defend against a terrorist attack, the skeptic has to defeat every single version, while the believer only has to come up with a single inexplicable example in order to consider themselves to be vindicated.

The skeptic has to at least investigate a number of NDE to come to any conclusion. They have to get past their personal biases first before they can look at the evdience fairly.

But I think the real issue is that most skeptics will also be atheists and many materialists by the fact that they require physical evdience. They only believe in that which they can see themselves and want a rational explanation. So its a fundemental ontological and metaphysical issue about how the world and nature of reality is.

So a skeptic will dismiss other types of evdience like subjective conscious experience and the more transcental aspects of reality. But we know from even science that this materialist view of reality has been undermined and that there is more to reality than what we can scientifically verify. So if we are fair we have to first acknowledge that the evdience can be determined by a number of ways and not just empirically.

Anecdotal stories simply aren't trustworthy. Even well intentioned people can be vulnerable to misremembering and embellishing what was in the end just a perfectly natural and totally explicable event.

Yet our justice system relies of personal testimony. It has its place as long as there is other corroberating evdience. My support for NDE and consciousness beyond the physical brain doesn't just rely on NDE. That is just an expected symptom of a more fundemnetal idea of reality. That we as observers, conscious beings can know a reality beyond the physical world which actually influences the physical world. That the material world is just a reflection of something more fundemental like MInd. Even many pioneering quantum physicists believed this.

So the arguement for NDE is really part of a much bigger and stronger arguement for consciousness beyond the physical brain and in that sense it lends support for taking seriously NDE as perhaps revealing something about the nature or reality.

I mean take the current UFO congress hearings. Some are giving personal testimony under oath. They have said some pretty crazy things. Are we to just dismiss it all as lies. Or is there something going on. NOt necessarily aliens but somethng strange beyond current human knowledge.

So does this mean that I won't accept any evidence at all? No. Combined, AWARE and AWARE II placed thousands of visual markers on hospital shelves around the U.K, U.S. and Austria. So far nobody has reported seeing any of them. If someday, someone does, then you can call it a veridical NDE, but until then it's all just anecdotal.

I am not sure about that. I think even if someone does see the markers sskeptics will still say there was some trickery involved. Thats because we already have cases that prove someone can describe objects, events and conversations which clinically dead or unconscious. I suggest you read the examples I have given.

The events were followed up immediatly and verified so there was no time gap to forget or reimagine. The doctors just stated the facts and there was consensus. They describe these are unexplained but that doesn't mean they are true.

We have to get past this idea that acknowledging that something actually happened as it was claimed doesn't mean that something supernatural is going on. Thats another arguement to have as these examples like any examples in any field are not actually explaining what is happening. But we need to acknowledge they happen so that we can move to the next stage of determining what is going on. It may be a natural explanation.

Unless you've got one that you find particularly convincing, in which case bring it on. But don't expect me to pick one, because then you'd just go find another. You get one chance... make it a good one.

Well I investigate them all and could not find anything skeptical said about them like some other examples. Nor did I find any evdience to the contrary. The first example seems like a good one as its probably got more said about it than the others.

 

[Bradskii]

Lets go with the first one if you want.

Done. The case that involved Dr. Rudy.

Now this was meant to have taken place in the late 90's. From Rudy's assistant Amado-Cattaneo: Dr. Lloyd Rudy Cardiac Surgeon - Tells Two NDEs - The Skeptics Society Forum

'This case happened some time late 1990’s early 2000’s. I do not know the patient’s identity anymore.'

So this happened at least 23 years ago. The video of Rudy is from 2012.

So we're looking at someone giving evidence from an event around 12 years old. About a patient who is not identified and for whom we have no records. There is, in other words, no documents to corroborate anything that was said in the video. And I can't find any record of Rudy commenting on this case before then. All Google links on the story take you straight to the video.

Now the claim that the patient was dead is obviously wrong. That he was not attached to anything that was pumping blood or feeding him oxygen appears to be genuine. That his heart started again is not questioned. This is a rare but medically documented situation termed the Lazarus Effect (for obvious reasons). From here: What Is the Lazarus Effect?

'Healthcare providers define autoresuscitation as the return of spontaneous circulation after CPR has ended. This means your heart begins beating again without help and can send blood to your organs and tissues. Here’s the basic order of events that qualify a specific case as autoresuscitation:

1. A person has cardiac arrest.
2. A healthcare provider or someone else begins performing CPR.
3. The individual giving CPR determines it’s not helping and concludes the person has died.
4. A medical professional authorized to make the call declares the person clinically dead. No one performs any further medical interventions.
5. Minutes or even hours later, someone notices signs of life. These could be movements or indications of breathing. The signs must last for more than a few seconds.
6. A healthcare provider determines the person’s circulation has returned, and active medical care resumes.'

This is exactly as Dr. Rudy described it. So the fact that this guy's heart spontaneously started again is nothing to get excited about. It happens. Not often, but this is a classic example of it.

From the video it is noted that Dr. Rudy and others didn't question the patient about his experience immediately. In fact, the patient was out for a day or two. But Rudy said that it was discussed with him up to two weeks later. Now even if it was a few days later, the usual point must be made in this case as all other similar ones. That it is all too easy for someone to talk about what happened to the patient. After all, it was a rare event and he had been declared dead so I'd be absolutely astonished if nobody had said anything ('Yes, Joe, you were actually declared dead! And Dr. Rudy and his assistant had de-gowned and were standing there in their shirtsleeves discussing what went wrong. And then your heart started up again!').

So did he need to see the doctors? No, he didn't. And could he have seen the sticky notes even if he hadn't heard anyone talking about them? Well, even Rudy's assistant admits that he could have.

'There are many non sterile equipment in an operating room including monitors. Monitors are close range so surgeons can “monitor different parameters through the case”. The message to Dr. Rudy I believe were taped to a monitor that sits close to the end of the operating table, up in the air, close enough for anybody to see what it is there, like the patient for example if he was looking at it. (R.Amado-Cattaneo, personal communication, February 15h 2013).'

Note that he said 'I believed were taped to a monitor'. Not 'were taped to a monitor'. But that's an incidental point. Were there any notes there when the guy was wheeled in? I don't know. Was he conscious at some point after he auto resuscitated? I don't know. Did someone mention them? I don't know. But it's a minor point on which to claim that he was somehow floating about the op theatre.

So this is your very best shot. This is the best one you have decided to present to prove that NDEs exist. This is one that is meant to definitely show that people float around rooms when they are medically dead. But what we have is someone who auto resuscitated - a known medical event, so any suggestion that this was some sort of miracle is completely rejected, and who almost certainly discussed the event with someone before Rudy or his assistant eventually spoke to him. So there is zero evidence that he could only have known about minor events post fact (two people in shirtsleeves were chatting at the door) by some supernatural means.

Rejected. And as this is your best example, the others must be even worse than this one. So they are likewise rejected en masse.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I'll give you an example. A woman was born blind. She could not see. She was at one point considered clinically dead. While she was dead she had experiences of seeing relatives and described them perfectly even though she had never seen them in her life. She reported this when she was brought back to life. Another example is a person who was clinically dead who memorized a number that was 11 digits long. I believe because of the nature of the surgery her brain was drained of blood and it was even the case that she had a device that clicked at decibels that would make it impossible for her to hear what was going on during her surgery. When she came back alive, she told a nurse to right down the number. The number was from a machine some ways away, which they found out later. These things cannot be explained naturally.

If I had a NDE and it involved having memorized numbers, I’d think I was in hell.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

During a general anesthesia, communication between sub-regions of brain is halted and this causes consciousness to disappear. No dreams, no observation, no experience, no memories. Just a full shut down and a restart later.

How do you interpret it from Christian and others perspective?

I interpret it as science scienceing.

Though I have been under anesthesia a bunch of times, I can’t say that I didn’t have a version of dreaming, though. I can’t articulate it because it wasn’t dreaming persay, with people and storylines and that jazz, but it wasn’t a “the plug was pulled and the TV turned off” experience either.

 

[stevevw]

Done. The case that involved Dr. Rudy.

Now this was meant to have taken place in the late 90's. From Rudy's assistant Amado-Cattaneo: Dr. Lloyd Rudy Cardiac Surgeon - Tells Two NDEs - The Skeptics Society Forum

'This case happened some time late 1990’s early 2000’s. I do not know the patient’s identity anymore.'

So this happened at least 23 years ago. The video of Rudy is from 2012.

So we're looking at someone giving evidence from an event around 12 years old. About a patient who is not identified and for whom we have no records. There is, in other words, no documents to corroborate anything that was said in the video. And I can't find any record of Rudy commenting on this case before then. All Google links on the story take you straight to the video.

We often refer to memory of events from recent past including in court cases and have no issue with eye witness accounts. So this has no weight in refuting what happened ie the many cases women bring against abuse by males relies on events up to 30 years ago. There is no evidence that Dr Rudy or his assistent had memory problems about the actual events themselves.

If the event is significant then people remember. I can recall significant event details from 12 to 15 years ago. Its etched in your mememory.

Now the claim that the patient was dead is obviously wrong. That he was not attached to anything that was pumping blood or feeding him oxygen appears to be genuine. That his heart started again is not questioned.

How is the claim that the patient was dead wrong. As eyewitness Dr. Roberto Amado-Cattaneo mentions "This patient had close to 20 minutes or more of no life, no physiologic life, no heart beat, no blood pressure, no respiratory function whatsoever"

I have seen people recover from profound and prolonged shock, but still having life, in this case there was no life. (R. Amado-Cattaneo, personal communication, January 28 and 30, 2013).

This is a rare but medically documented situation termed the Lazarus Effect (for obvious reasons). From here: What Is the Lazarus Effect?

'Healthcare providers define autoresuscitation as the return of spontaneous circulation after CPR has ended. This means your heart begins beating again without help and can send blood to your organs and tissues. Here’s the basic order of events that qualify a specific case as autoresuscitation:

1. A person has cardiac arrest.
2. A healthcare provider or someone else begins performing CPR.
3. The individual giving CPR determines it’s not helping and concludes the person has died.
4. A medical professional authorized to make the call declares the person clinically dead. No one performs any further medical interventions.
5. Minutes or even hours later, someone notices signs of life. These could be movements or indications of breathing. The signs must last for more than a few seconds.
6. A healthcare provider determines the person’s circulation has returned, and active medical care resumes.'

This is exactly as Dr. Rudy described it. So the fact that this guy's heart spontaneously started again is nothing to get excited about. It happens. Not often, but this is a classic example of it.

Actually I wasn't making any claims about the patient coming back to life. Thats a different claim to NDE. The point is the patient was clinically dead for a time when they had their NDE.

From the video it is noted that Dr. Rudy and others didn't question the patient about his experience immediately. In fact, the patient was out for a day or two. But Rudy said that it was discussed with him up to two weeks later. Now even if it was a few days later, the usual point must be made in this case as all other similar ones. That it is all too easy for someone to talk about what happened to the patient. After all, it was a rare event and he had been declared dead so I'd be absolutely astonished if nobody had said anything ('Yes, Joe, you were actually declared dead! And Dr. Rudy and his assistant had de-gowned and were standing there in their shirtsleeves discussing what went wrong. And then your heart started up again!').

Thats rediculous. Apart from the doctors why would someone be discussing such details to a patient. This is just an unsupported accertion thats designed to muddy the waters, to discredit witnesses own experiences. Thats all skeptics have. There is absolutely no evidence for this. The patient and witnesses are speaking as first persons not relaying something they heard 2nd hand. There is no inconsistencies in their reports.

So did he need to see the doctors? No, he didn't.

Not sure what you mean by "did he need to see the doctors?" as though there was a choice in it. It was just something the patient experienced and then relayed to the doctors.

And could he have seen the sticky notes even if he hadn't heard anyone talking about them? Well, even Rudy's assistant admits that he could have.

'There are many non sterile equipment in an operating room including monitors. Monitors are close range so surgeons can “monitor different parameters through the case”. The message to Dr. Rudy I believe were taped to a monitor that sits close to the end of the operating table, up in the air, close enough for anybody to see what it is there, like the patient for example if he was looking at it. (R.Amado-Cattaneo, personal communication, February 15h 2013).'

Yes only if the patient was conscious. He was not conscious at the time. Why, because the sticky notes were not put up on the screen until after the patient had been either unconscious or clinically dead. The sticky notes we phone calls Dr Rudy recieved during the operation. Unless the patient was conscious with his chest open then that seems strange.

Note that he said 'I believed were taped to a monitor'. Not 'were taped to a monitor'. But that's an incidental point. Were there any notes there when the guy was wheeled in? I don't know. Was he conscious at some point after he auto resuscitated? I don't know. Did someone mention them? I don't know. But it's a minor point on which to claim that he was somehow floating about the op theatre.

This is all unsupported accertions designed to muddy the waters again. The idea of "I do not know" designed to bring doubt. There was no doubt. The patient was either unconscious or dead at the very least. During the operation he was knocked out considering they were opening up his chest. The patient is lying there with eyes shut. Cattaneo mentions that it was possible for a patient to see the monitor if they were conscious and awake not unconscious and dead.

If your going to use Cattaneo then you should include his actualy testimony to the case.

I was in the case from beginning to end. I did witness the entire case and everything that my partner Dr. Rudy explained in the video. I do not have a rational scientific explanation to explain this phenomenon. I do know that this happened. This patient had close to 20 minutes or more of no life, no physiologic life, no heart beat, no blood pressure, no respiratory function whatsoever and then he came back to life and told us what you heard on the video.

This was not a hoax, no way, this was as real as it gets.

So this is your very best shot. This is the best one you have decided to present to prove that NDEs exist. This is one that is meant to definitely show that people float around rooms when they are medically dead. But what we have is someone who auto resuscitated - a known medical event, so any suggestion that this was some sort of miracle is completely rejected,

Like I said this is a seperate issue to NDE so lets take this out and look at the facts around the NDE itself instead of conflating things to muddy the waters.

and who almost certainly discussed the event with someone before Rudy or his assistant eventually spoke to him.

Where is the evdience for this. I mean you go on about anecdotal evidence being weak but your not only now relaying on anecdotal evidence to claim you have refuted this case which seems ironic but you are making up anecdotes as well. If there is any evdience that has zero credibility its this.

But thats what skeptics do they try all sorts of mud slinging, make as much doubt as possible, doesn't matter make things up, throw in unrelated reasons, anything to muddy the waters.

I noticed this when skeptics bring up objections like possible memory loss. Rather than show how there was actual memory loss in the particular case they go on to cite articles about memory loss like that is evdience against the case when they have not shown there was actual memory loss in that case. Its a bait and switch move just like creationists and evolutionists lol.

So there is zero evidence that he could only have known about minor events post fact (two people in shirtsleeves were chatting at the door) by some supernatural means.

Rejected. And as this is your best example, the others must be even worse than this one. So they are likewise rejected en masse.

No your evdience is zero and in no way disproves what happened. Its just a lots of unsupported accertions and mud slinging and revealing that skeptics are willing to rely on such flimsey evdience while at the same time denouncing and denying pro evidence which seems at the very least stronger if not much stronger. This perhaps shows their hidden bias.

If anything the evdience for this case is strong. Its backed by the facts and eye witnesses to the events. Investigations were done and the conclusions were that there was a strong case for the events happening just as was told.

Amado-Cattaneo’s testimony is very valuable, as it explicitly confirms Rudy’s account. The evidential value of this case is increased because of the component of the Post-it notes, which involved seemingly out-of-body visual perception of phenomena during documented continuous eyes-closed unconsciousness that was highly unlikely to have been deduced from sensory input such as hearing or from logical deduction. Neither Rudy nor Cattaneo indicated that the patient reported any erroneous content. This case appears to belong to those most evidential cases of AVP in which perceptions during an NDE were confirmed as completely accurate by objective observers.
https://ia904704.us.archive.org/8/items/moreitems/BRIEF REPORT re Lloyd Rudy.pdf

PS I did not say that this case was the best I could offer. I said that they are all just as good as each other and offer the same strong evidence. In fact I said there are so many cases with strong evidence that even the 4 I posted are just as good as the many others. I just chose those ones because they seemed more interesting.

 

[Bradskii]

PS I did not say that this case was the best I could offer. I said that they are all just as good as each other and offer the same strong evidence. In fact I said there are so many cases with strong evidence that even the 4 I posted are just as good as the many others. I just chose those ones because they seemed more interesting.

I asked you for the best you had. Repeatedly. This is the one you went with. And to say it's a weak example is a gross understatement.

We are now done. I have zero interest in repeating this exercise ad nauseam. You had your chance.

 

[stevevw]

I asked you for the best you had. Repeatedly. This is the one you went with. And to say it's a weak example is a gross understatement.

You keep saying this but your establishiong that its a weak case on even weaker evidence and in fact no direct evidence. Your creating a big logical fallacy here in assuming your evidence is strong when it uses the same if not weaker evdience. Its self contradictory.

We are now done. I have zero interest in repeating this exercise ad nauseam. You had your chance.

Once again you give up and close things down when it gets too hard. Lets remind ourselves of the facts. There has been no repeating ad nauseam. You jumped into my post and made a claim by first assuming my example was of the tennis shoes. So you already showed your mind was made up and biased.

Then you dismissed my examples without looking at them. Once again a closed mind because of bias. You could have looked at them but rather you wanted to play a game. Your arguement is because its too hard to look at each case because of some prior assumption that all cases are like the tennis shoe example is also closed minded and bias. An open mind would not be so hostile to investigating these cases.

Now you want to shut down discussion again because of a closed mind and bias. No come back on the article I linked that investigated the case, no arguement comeback about the actual testimony of Cattaneo, arguement against the facts of the case. Just complete shut down dismissing everything. Like I said what I have noticed is skeptics are awefully quiet when it gets down to the facts that cannot be explained.

Any reasonable person would at least discuss the details of how your arguement doesn't actually disprove the case and that there may be something to investigate considering something strange did happen regardless of what that is.

The reality is there was no discussion from your part you had already made your mind up from the start. You presented a claim and then a challenge. I responded to that challenge and your response was to dismiss it as repeated ad nauseam when we both only had one reply and then the discussion was ended by you.

Thats not how an arguement goes. Usually its arguement and counter arguements. I only got one arguement in which I had a right to respond as you made the challenge and you didn't even respond to that. Thats just dismissing things without any engagement in finding the truth because you already believe that your truth is the only correct one..

Oh well at least you convinced yourself. I will take it that you have not refuted this case but only made some subjective assertions about it.

 

[partinobodycular]

But what about the straight forward cases just based on the facts.

That's the way I judge all of them. Based on the facts. Unfortunately you seem to have chosen a case that doesn't have a lot of them. All we have is the story as related by Dr. Rudy in the linked video, and notably corroborated by Dr. Amado-Cattaneo, who's corroboration unfortunately added absolutely no additional information.

But we have what we have, which in this case seems fairly straightforward. All that we have to do is watch the video, or read a transcript of it. The facts, as you say, speak for themselves. (To me the transcript is better because you can go back over the details as much as necessary.)

When sticking strictly to the facts the most likely explanation is that the patient knew about the Post-It notes, because he saw them. He knew about Dr. Rudy and Dr. Amado-Cattaneo standing in the doorway, because he saw them. And he knew about the anesthesiologist running back into the room, because he saw him.

There's absolutely nothing in this account that cries out for a supernatural explanation. I'll readily admit that to reach this conclusion I had to make certain assumptions, simply due to the dearth of information contained in the video. But I would point out that to reach a verdict of a supernatural occurrence a similar number of assumptions would also have to be made. That being the case, the simpler explanation is the most likely explanation. Hence, the patient knew what was happening because he saw what was happening.

I'm fairly certain that you're going to raise all sorts of objections, or at least I sincerely hope that you do, but I'm quite confident in my assessment, so by all means bring'em on.

 

[stevevw]

Here is more evdience that something is going in the brain, in the conscious regions of the brain when a person is unconscious and clinically dead (brain flatlined).

A specific study was setup to monitor the brains of cardiac arrest patients. Studies have now shown that there are spikes of brain activity in the regions of the brain responsible for conscious thinking while a person is unconscious or has a flatlined brain which should not be possible.

This does not necessarily prove NDE directly but it does show that activity in the conscious regions of the brain are happening which should not happen.

Further studies were done to compare the signiture of the brain activity with that of brain activity for dreams or associated brain activity with hallucinations associated with medications and toxins and it was determined the brain signiture of deceased persons was different and not the result of hallucinations, dreams or imaginations.

New evidence indicates patients recall death experiences after cardiac arrest
Recording brain waves while undergoing CPR
In the study, published Thursday in the journal Resuscitation, teams of trained personnel in 25 hospitals in the United States, the United Kingdom and Bulgaria followed doctors into rooms where patients were “coding” or “technically dead,” While doctors performed CPR, the research teams attached devices that measured oxygen and electrical activity to the dying person’s head.

We found the brains of people who are going through death have flatlined, which is what you would expect, but interestingly, even up to an hour into the resuscitation, we saw spikes — the emergence of brain electrical activity, the same as I have when talking or deeply concentrating.

Those experiences were categorized along with testimonies from 126 survivors of cardiac arrest who were not in the study, and “we were able to show very clearly that the recorded experience of death — a sense of separation, a review of your life, going to a place that feels like home and then a recognition that you need to come back — were very consistent across people from all over the world.

In addition, the study took the recorded brain signals and compared them with brain signals done by other studies on hallucinations, delusions and illusions and found them to be very different.

“We were able to conclude that the recalled experience of death is real. It occurs with death, and there’s a brain marker that we’ve identified. These electrical signals are not being produced as a trick of a dying brain, which is what a lot of critics have said.”
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/14/health/near-death-experience-study-wellness/index.html#:~:text=We%20found%20the%20brains%20of,deeply%20concentrating%2C%E2%80%9D%20he%20added.

AS the study mentions this brain activity happening during clinical death is not direct evidence of NDE. But its something that demands further investigation. This is only a relative new field of study and so far there has been little opportunity to do tests but because some important and strange findings have occured (brain activity when supposedly dead or unconscious) then its enough evdience to warrant further investigation.

But having a closed mind and assuming that its all woo, imagination or delusion is the exact opposite of having an open mind. It points to bias, a mind already made up and so will look for ways to disprove things.

Any reasonable person would at least be open to the possibility that something strange and unexplained at present is happening in the brain of clinically dead persons that under current materialist views should not happen if conscious thinking requires a complex arrangement of neurological activity at a time when there is hardly any or none because the brain has flatlined.

 

[Bradskii]

He knew about Dr. Rudy and Dr. Amado-Cattaneo standing in the doorway, because he saw them. And he knew about the anesthesiologist running back into the room, because he saw him.

He didn't even have to see them.

A man has been taken in for a life and death operation. Something has gone pear shaped and he's actually been declared dead. By one of the senior surgeons. And then, a very rare occurrence - a Lazarus event. Which quite likely was the first that anyone would have experienced. A huge talking point in the hospital. Word of this would have got around to everyone in this hospital and no doubt other local hospitals. The guy is still out from the anaesthesia. So his wife is called in and the matter is explained to her. 'Your husband died and came back to life! It's an incredibly rare event. You are so lucky'. And she's told all about the details. Obviously.

A day or so later her husband is still woozy, still not 100%. His wife is visiting. She gets emotional. 'I nearly lost you. They told me what happened. Apparently...' and she tells him what happened.

What else could possibly have happened? Nobody told him what had happened to him? It was never discussed? The details weren't given to his wife? She and her husband never discussed it? Gimme a break. It's nonsensical to suggest otherwise.

Then a week later (it may have been two weeks later according to the doctor himself) the doc talks to the guy and he now has a memory of the event. He repeats it.
'You actually remember this?'
'I guess so...yeah.'

Quite a few years ago I was talking to a good friend about a big football match we'd seen together in the UK. 'Remember. We had a beer in that pub near the ground'. Yes, of course he remembered. He remembered the score, that it was raining. That we couldn't get a cab after the game. Then a couple of years later he and I were in a group and he mentioned this game that we'd been to. Started relating the story. Fantastic atmosphere. So lucky to get tickets. A great night. Then someone pointed out that the game (an FA cup final) was played the year he was working overseas. He'd never been. But we both had very vivid memories of being there together. But I'd gone with someone else.

I guess he must have temporarily died that night and floated over to Wembley to experience the atmosphere, check out the weather, have that beer with me and noted the dearth of cabs. Or maybe somebody told him the story and he actually believed he'd been there.

The story that he was telling to a few of us years later, so very accurate according to my memory, was richer in detail than the guy in the medical story. And it was actually about 10 years after the event, so it ties in nicely. Surely a more likely candidate for a supernatural event! But he was just repeating what I had told him.

And these stories are a dime a dozen.

 

[stevevw]

That's the way I judge all of them. Based on the facts. Unfortunately you seem to have chosen a case that doesn't have a lot of them. All we have is the story as related by Dr. Rudy in the linked video, and notably corroborated by Dr. Amado-Cattaneo, who's corroboration unfortunately added absolutely no additional information.

Yes thats the point, he didn't add anything else that Dr Rudy said. It was the same as Dr Ruby's which is what we would expect if factual. Its like a eye withness in court backing up the exact events as another witness or of the victims. It lends weight to the evidence. Its not the entire evidence but it can be a crucial part of the evidence.

But we have what we have, which in this case seems fairly straightforward. All that we have to do is watch the video, or read a transcript of it. The facts, as you say, speak for themselves. (To me the transcript is better because you can go back over the details as much as necessary.)

When sticking strictly to the facts the most likely explanation is that the patient knew about the Post-It notes, because he saw them.

But this is not sticking strictly to the facts. Dr Rudy said that the Post-It notes are put on the screen during the operation. Assuming he cannot answer them during the operation. So obviously the patient is unconscious during the operation. Rudy's assistent Cattaneo backed this fact.

Cattaneo mentions that the computer screen can be visble by a patient but only if they were conscious with eyes open and bending their head towards the screen at the end of the bed as patient is lying flat. This in no ways refutes that the patient was unconscious because they were opening up his chest to perform heart surgery.

This is the skeptics ploy to bring up possibilities even if they are contrary to facts to create doubt. But as far as I can see at least as far as the patient being able to physically see the Post-It notes while in the OR room for that operation he was unconscious when the Post-It notes were placed on the screen and then was clinically dead and once revived was still unconscious due to additional anestetic and then taken from the OR to an ICU unit. Thus never being conscious especially with eyes open to see the Post-It notes.

Thats why some then resort to the next attempt wheich is to say someone told him. But there is absolutely no evidence for this either. Both doctors say the events happened exactly how they explained them and they were astonished. I don't think the 3 of them were conspiring to create some head line event. It just happened how they reproted. But this should not be a surpise as there are 1,000s and 1,000s of them which are remarkably consistent. But it doesn't mean anything supernatural either.

He knew about Dr. Rudy and Dr. Amado-Cattaneo standing in the doorway, because he saw them. And he knew about the anesthesiologist running back into the room, because he saw him.

You say this like its a fact and yet you have absolutely no evdience for this. THis is usually what skeptics do. They don't even offer an explanation or support. They just make the claim like its self supporting.

At the time the doctors were standing in the doorway was when as Cattaneo said "This patient had close to 20 minutes or more of no life, no physiologic life, no heart beat, no blood pressure, no respiratory function whatsoever"

The doctors were standing in the doorway when there was no signs of life, no brain activity. They then proceded resustitation once there was some activity coming back.

Cattaneo also said
I do not believe he said anything that we questioned as being real, we thought all along his description was quite accurate regarding things he said he saw or heard.

There's absolutely nothing in this account that cries out for a supernatural explanation. I'll readily admit that to reach this conclusion I had to make certain assumptions, simply due to the dearth of information contained in the video. But I would point out that to reach a verdict of a supernatural occurrence a similar number of assumptions would also have to be made. That being the case, the simpler explanation is the most likely explanation. Hence, the patient knew what was happening because he saw what was happening.

But that explanation flies in the face of the actual facts of what happened. You have asserted "he must have seen things with his physical eyes" because you cannot come to any other conclusion as your priori beliefs and assumptions are based on materialism. Everything must have a rational and naturalistic cause.

If we take the facts then the simplist explanation is that the events happened just as the first hand witnesses said it happened. But we don't know what this happened. That is the most reasonable position to take if one has an open mind because it doesn't assume any conclusion about why NDE is happening. But it does leave the door open for further investigation.

I'm fairly certain that you're going to raise all sorts of objections, or at least I sincerely hope that you do, but I'm quite confident in my assessment, so by all means bring'em on.

I cannot see how you are confident. Lets see what you actually said. Despite the facts you claim that the patient must have seen the doctors in the doorway and the post it notes on the PC screen.

You have supplied absolutely no evdience for this despite the patient being unconscious. If not unconscious you have given no arguement for patient being conscious.

It amounts to a subjective accertion more likely motivated by your priori beliefs and assumption rather than being factual.

 

[stevevw]

He didn't even have to see them.

A man has been taken in for a life and death operation. Something has gone pear shaped and he's actually been declared dead. By one of the senior surgeons. And then, a very rare occurrence - a Lazarus event. Which quite likely was the first that anyone would have experienced. A huge talking point in the hospital. Word of this would have got around to everyone in this hospital and no doubt other local hospitals. The guy is still out from the anaesthesia. So his wife is called in and the matter is explained to her. 'Your husband died and came back to life! It's an incredibly rare event. You are so lucky'. And she's told all about the details. Obviously.

A day or so later her husband is still woozy, still not 100%. His wife is visiting. She gets emotional. 'I nearly lost you. They told me what happened. Apparently...' and she tells him what happened.

What else could possibly have happened? Nobody told him what had happened to him? It was never discussed? The details weren't given to his wife? She and her husband never discussed it? Gimme a break. It's nonsensical to suggest otherwise.

Then a week later (it may have been two weeks later according to the doctor himself) the doc talks to the guy and he now has a memory of the event. He repeats it.
'You actually remember this?'
'I guess so...yeah.'

Quite a few years ago I was talking to a good friend about a big football match we'd seen together in the UK. 'Remember. We had a beer in that pub near the ground'. Yes, of course he remembered. He remembered the score, that it was raining. That we couldn't get a cab after the game. Then a couple of years later he and I were in a group and he mentioned this game that we'd been to. Started relating the story. Fantastic atmosphere. So lucky to get tickets. A great night. Then someone pointed out that the game (an FA cup final) was played the year he was working overseas. He'd never been. But we both had very vivid memories of being there together. But I'd gone with someone else.

I guess he must have temporarily died that night and floated over to Wembley to experience the atmosphere, check out the weather, have that beer with me and noted the dearth of cabs. Or maybe somebody told him the story and he actually believed he'd been there.

The story that he was telling to a few of us years later, so very accurate according to my memory, was richer in detail than the guy in the medical story. And it was actually about 10 years after the event, so it ties in nicely. Surely a more likely candidate for a supernatural event! But he was just repeating what I had told him.

And these stories are a dime a dozen.

Ah the irony. Claiming anecdotes is not evidence and then using anecdotes as evidence. I guess where all the same in the end.

 

[partinobodycular]

Dr Rudy said that the Post-It notes are put on the screen during the operation.

You're absolutely right. Which is why the patient was able to see them when he spontaneously resuscitated. Dr. Rudy explicitly said that the patient had regained both electrical activity and blood pressure while he and Dr. Amado-Cattaneo were standing in the doorway. This was at least 20 minutes after anesthesia had been discontinued according to Dr. Rudy.

Cattaneo mentions that the computer screen can be visble by a patient but only if they were conscious with eyes open and bending their head towards the screen at the end of the bed as patient is lying flat.

Here's what Dr. Amado-Cattaneo said per the email:

The messages to Dr. Rudy I believe were taped to a monitor that sits close to the end of the operating table, up in the air, close enough for anybody to see what it is there, like the patient for example if he was looking at it.

The monitor wasn't at table height as most people would assume, rather it was up in the air where it wouldn't have been necessary for the patient to have been 'bending their head towards the screen' as you assert.

At the time the doctors were standing in the doorway was when as Cattaneo said "This patient had close to 20 minutes or more of no life, no physiologic life, no heart beat, no blood pressure, no respiratory function whatsoever"

The doctors were standing in the doorway when there was no signs of life, no brain activity. They then proceded resustitation once there was some activity coming back.

What this means is that there had been at least 20 minutes of no anesthesia whatsoever. And Dr. Rudy and Dr. Amado-Cattaneo only returned to the operating table after the patient had regained both electrical activity and blood pressure. But nowhere do they tell us how long it actually was before they returned to the operating table, just some time after activity began to return. So it's an assumption to conclude that the patient had no conscious activity whatsoever at that point. He may have, he may not have, we don't know.

I'll admit that he certainly wasn't laying there bright eyed and bushy tailed, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't have had some level of conscious awareness, sufficient enough to be aware of the Post-It notes which Dr. Amado-Cattaneo stated were clearly in his field of view, and of the doorway where they were standing, and through which the anesthesiologist came running.

The only assumption that I'm making is that the patient had sufficient time off of anesthesia to regain some limited sense of conscious awareness.

It amounts to a subjective accertion more likely motivated by your priori beliefs and assumption rather than being factual.

As I said, I'm relying solely on the facts, and making assumptions only where the facts are insufficient to reach a definitive conclusion. All of my conclusions fit the facts just by making one simple assumption, that after more than 20 minutes off of anesthesia, and with the concomitant return of electrical activity and blood pressure, the patient had regained at least a limited degree of conscious awareness.

You also have to make an assumption, that the patient hadn't regained a limited sense of conscious awareness. It would seem that I'm making no more assumptions than you are, it's just that my conclusion doesn't include an unnecessary plea to the supernatural.

 

[Bradskii]

Ah the irony. Claiming anecdotes is not evidence and then using anecdotes as evidence. I guess where all the same in the end.

I think you're missing the point. There's nothing but anecdotes. Using anecdotal evidence to show that someone was at a football match, even when two people corroborate the story, is just that. Anecdotal evidence. Which was shown to be wrong. It cannot be relied on.

 

[stevevw]

You're absolutely right. Which is why the patient was able to see them when he spontaneously resuscitated. Dr. Rudy explicitly said that the patient had regained both electrical activity and blood pressure while he and Dr. Amado-Cattaneo were standing in the doorway. This was at least 20 minutes after anesthesia had been discontinued according to Dr. Rudy.

The problem is when the patient started to regain blood pressure the doctors were there is a split second. Even weak blood pressure is not enough to generate enough blood flow and oxygen to the brain for consciousness. Then theres the fact that the doctors did not see the patient turn his head or open his eyes to see them. But even if he could theres the problem that the patients eyes were taped shut.

Lloyd Rudy’s patient experienced a vivid NDE while his heart had completely stopped. Although his eyes were taped shut, he later reported perceiving veridical details of the doctors and the OR that were later verified by the two surgeons.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...val_after_permanent_bodily_death_includes_TOC

Heart Surgeon Confirms Near-Death Experience Account That Challenges Modern Science
Once resuscitated was able to describe to Dr. Rudy details of the operating theatre – which he had seen during his out-of-body experience – that he should not have known based on his state at the time (general anaesthetic, eyes taped shut, and then ‘dead’).

Heart Surgeon Confirms Near-Death Experience Account That Challenges Modern Science - The Daily Grail

A few years ago I posted a video interview with renowned heart surgeon Dr. Lloyd Rudy, in which he told of an experience he had with a patient who died on the table, had an NDE, and once resuscitated was able to describe to Dr. Rudy details of the operating theatre – which he had seen during his...

www.dailygrail.com

Here's what Dr. Amado-Cattaneo said per the email:
The monitor wasn't at table height as most people would assume, rather it was up in the air where it wouldn't have been necessary for the patient to have been 'bending their head towards the screen' as you assert.

As mentioned the patients eyes were said to be shut and taped the whole time. But even if this was not the case there is no way someone lying flat on their back eyes pointed to ceiling can then see an object clearly at the end of the bed. The monitor was probably around standing eye level for easy viewing. The operating table is high enough for the surgons.

So theres a pretty acute angle between eyes pointed at ceiling and something more or less 3 feet higher at the end of the bed. Try it your peripheral vision doesn't reach that far. So the patient would have to have tilted the head, opened his eyes and made some facial expressions to even focus which would have eaily been noticed by doctors and an anesthesiologist who were right on top of him at that time.

I mean assuming the doorway and monitor are in two different locations as well as the other several descriptions of the OR room as mentioned that he saw all this without opening his eyes or moving his head. Talk about eyes in the back of the head. He seems to have eyes all over his head to do that. But that is exactly the vision he had during NDE as eye sight becomes supernormal at 360 degrees.

What this means is that there had been at least 20 minutes of no anesthesia whatsoever. And Dr. Rudy and Dr. Amado-Cattaneo only returned to the operating table after the patient had regained both electrical activity and blood pressure. But nowhere do they tell us how long it actually was before they returned to the operating table, just some time after activity began to return. So it's an assumption to conclude that the patient had no conscious activity whatsoever at that point. He may have, he may not have, we don't know.

I'll admit that he certainly wasn't laying there bright eyed and bushy tailed, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't have had some level of conscious awareness, sufficient enough to be aware of the Post-It notes

Only that his eyes were taped. Your trying to squeeze all the patients experiences which was more than just seeing the doctors and post it notes but several events into a split second and somehow was aware enough to notice these things but not the fact that he had a massive cut down his chest. Seems unreal.

I think the doctors would have got there at the split second there was some blood pressure but not full blood pressure to generat any coherent consciousness. Then the doctors and anesthesiologist were all over hime and would have seen his eyes open. They never once mention that the patient opened their eyes or moved. In fact the patient was so compromised at the time that he remained unconscious throughout the entire event and for one or two days afterwards. As Dr Rudy explains

He described the scene, things that there is no way he knew. I mean, he didn’t wake up in the operating room and see all this. I mean he was out and was out for, I don’t know, even a day or two while we recovered him in the intensive care unit.

which Dr. Amado-Cattaneo stated were clearly in his field of view, and of the doorway where they were standing, and through which the anesthesiologist came running.

except his eyes were taped shut and the doctors reported that his eyes were cloed the entire time and never once seen them open.

The only assumption that I'm making is that the patient had sufficient time off of anesthesia to regain some limited sense of conscious awareness.

ONly the doctor said he was out for the count so much so that he didn't wake for a couple of days afterwards.

As I said, I'm relying solely on the facts, and making assumptions only where the facts are insufficient to reach a definitive conclusion. All of my conclusions fit the facts just by making one simple assumption, that after more than 20 minutes off of anesthesia, and with the concomitant return of electrical activity and blood pressure, the patient had regained at least a limited degree of conscious awareness.

No they don't they contradict the facts as told by the doctors. Your trying to squeeze something out that was not there and impossible considering the facts. No eyes open, taped shut, doctors all over him and not seeing his eyes open or him even move his head or focus enough to see anything.

You also have to make an assumption, that the patient hadn't regained a limited sense of conscious awareness. It would seem that I'm making no more assumptions than you are, it's just that my conclusion doesn't include an unnecessary plea to the supernatural.

No my assumptions are based on the facts as mentioned above. His eyes were shut and taped the entire time, he was so compromised that he didn't wake up for around two days after the operation, no one including the doctors, anesthesiologist and other people in the room saw him even move let alone open his eyes even though the doctors were on top of him trying to save his life.

This is what skeptics do. They throw up all sorts of objections and scenarios in the hope of casting some doubt. Make a noise about it so that it muddies the waters.

An investigation was done by a couple of independent researchers on the case and they both came to the conclusion that the events happened just as they were told.

https://ia904704.us.archive.org/8/items/moreitems/BRIEF%20REPORT%20re%20Lloyd%20Rudy.pdf

 

[stevevw]

I think you're missing the point. There's nothing but anecdotes. Using anecdotal evidence to show that someone was at a football match, even when two people corroborate the story, is just that. Anecdotal evidence. Which was shown to be wrong. It cannot be relied on.

Then why are you using anecdotes to argue that the case is false. That would mean you have no evidence that it did not happen. Yet your strong claim was its all concoted. You made a strong and confident claim that this NDE and all NDE's are all Woo and yet your evdience for this is based flimsy concoted anecdotes that have absolutely no basis. Thats a big step back from such assurity.

But in reality there is evidence (facts) that something did happen as I have already pointed out. These were not anecdotes but actual lived experiences being told. The doctors reported what they experienced as fact. The patient describe what they experienced as real.

This is a comon experience for NDE'ers where the majority say that what they experienced was more real than everyday life. They all have the floating above and looking down and bright light OBE as this patient had. Many describe events they could not have known.

Along with the fact that we now know that there is a brain spike in the conscious regions of the brain when a patient is clinically dead or unconscious through tests. So something is going on in the brain at a time when there should be nothing or at least not higher level consciousness that requires complex neurological signals of a good working brain to see clear and coherent events and not confused imaginings or illusions.

 

[Bradskii]

Then why are you using anecdotes to argue that the case is false.

I'm using anecdotal evidence ('hey, I was at the game with a friend - I remember the details') precisely to show you how unreliable it is.

 

[Bradskii]

...the patients eyes were taped shut.
Although his eyes were taped shut,
eyes taped shut,
Only that his eyes were taped.
No eyes open, taped shut,
except his eyes were taped shut

Six times you state quite specifically that his eyes were taped shut. This doesn't really impact on the actual event, but I just wanted to note that. In cases like this, all you need is one person to make a claim that something happened and it's then taken as factual evidence. Case in point.

We only have two eye witness accounts of the event - from something that happened at least 12 years prior to the statements being made. And in neither case does either of them say that the patients eyes were taped shut. Not at any time. We have lots of people saying that they were. You just did six times And a couple of them were quotes by others.

What we actually have is Rudy's assistant saying much later that patients eyes were sometimes taped. So not always. And not necessarily in this case. But...you have quoted it as a fact. So you are wrong. It's not a fact. Just like it's not a fact that the doctor said there was no other way the patient could have known about what happened. Of course he could have. Simply by being told.

Even when you relate what you consider to be the best example of an nde you can't even get the facts right yourself.

 

[stevevw]

Here is another line of evidence for consciousness beyond brain. Some of the pioneers of quantum physics support and have argued the idea of the MInd and consciousness being fundemental for reality.

To a lesser extent the majority say that the physical world including our physical brains are just a reflection of something more transcedental such as Information or Math which requires a Mind. This has actually been verified in QM experiments such as with particcle/wave collaspe and even interpretations of the observer effect such as Quantum Bayesianism.

As I said we don't have to just rely on NDE as there are several lines of evidence which all seem to converge on the Mind and Consciousness being something seperate from the physical world and impossible to explain (Hard problem of Consciousness) that exists as part of fundemental reality.

Of course the main line of evdience is the long history of religious belief and Transcedental meditation and first hand experiences of this that has fundementally influenced and changed the world. Then add the many experiences of people with the spiritual world.

But of course skeptics will dismiss all this saying they are the only enlightened ones and all sense of something beyond the material, the majority experiences of billions of people, evidence from a growing number of theories is all wrong and they are right. Yet these experiences seem to keep happening and in fact are getting stronger and more real.

The evidence favouring a view of consciousness that transcends physicalism is enormous and is too vast to be described here. Several excellent summaries have recently appeared, such as Varieties of Anomalous Experience: Examining the Scientific Evidence[62] ; Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century[63] ; and, as mentioned, Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality.[64] Materialism alone cannot explain the riddle of consciousness | Aeon Essays

What we observe as humans, using the sense organ that we know as our eye, is not a complete, correct representation of the environment. What we observe is a projected reality, projected energy, or ‘limited part’ of reality (waves/energy/dimension).
Quantum and Electromagnetic Fields in Our Universe and Brain: A New Perspective to Comprehend Brain Function

The Consciousness of Reality
Peer-reviewed studies are appearing in the physics literature describing mind-matter interactions in double-slit quantum experiments—a long suspected connection by many pioneers of quantum mechanics.

Beginning with an information ontology, a radical participatory ontology is hinted at. In essence, the human mind is witnessing the most radical paradigm shift in its own history. The well-served and previously glorious materialistic and reductionistic scientific worldview is yielding to a novel scientific conception of subjective consciousness and objective reality—and their unexpected intimate kinship.
The Consciousness of Reality

Henry P. Stapp has for 60 years been a leader – perhaps the leader – in exploring the role of mind/psyche/consciousness/experience in the ontology of quantum mechanics. Henry’s contention is that the very structure of quantum mechanics implies a central and irreducible role for mind: an experiential aspect of nature distinct from that of the physical matter and energy described by the dynamical equations of physics.

That mind may in some way extend beyond the brain and body – connecting personal conscious awareness with more extended sources of information in the world – is a powerful and compelling hypothesis that could account for many currently inexplicable phenomena. It is also a hypothesis that can be subjected to rigorous scientific investigation, both empirical and theoretical.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1904/1904.10528.pdf

According to the physicist John Wheeler, quantum mechanics implies that our observations of reality influence its unfolding. We live in a "participatory universe," Wheeler proposed, in which mind is as fundamental as matter. Philosopher David Chalmers, Nagel's colleague at New York University, conjectures that "information," which emerges from certain physical configurations and processes and entails consciousness, is a fundamental component of reality, as much so as time, space, matter and energy.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-scientific-materialism-almost-certainly-false/

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind

So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Heisenberg recommended staying in touch with reality as we experience it, which is to say holding a place for conceptions of mind and soul.
It's time for science to move on from materialism | Mark Vernon

Freeman Dyson: “The laws of subatomic physics cannot even be formulated without some reference to the observer. The laws leave a place for mind in the description of every molecule.”[23]

​