That's not quite what I'm saying, I'll try and clarify. (Note: I switched around your last two paragraphs to keep the theme together).
I agree that replicate was the wrong word. I'm not trying to equate the experiences or argue that they are near equivalent, or little to no difference - there are differences, from the reports I've seen (I can dig up examples if that will help). But that's not where I was going. I'm not, here, making the argument that stitching these together "explains" NDE. In this line of discussion I'm pre-explanation. I'm strictly at the hypothesis/investigation phase here.
I'm arguing that these reports tell us something about what the brain may be capable of. They raise the reasonable question of whether similar processes may be involved during the NDE., though triggered by different means, and in a different combination producing experiences that are similar in some ways, different in others. Studies like the LCD and DMT papers we were discussing in detail a few weeks ago, among others. They also have the advantage of being capable of being studied in much more controlled environments.
I want to be clear: I'm not suggesting that anyone should be convinced at this point that this is what is going on. That would not be reasonable since this research has only just begun. I also suggesting that it would be unreasonable to dismiss this hypothesis out of hand. I think there is good reason to consider it as a worthy avenue of research, given the studies that have been done to now that we've discussed on this forum. I'm not proposing this as an assumption, but as a reasonable line of research that there is good reason at this time to pursue.
Yes, he does think there is something special going on, my point was getting at that he isn't limiting his scope to the criteria of the NDE scale. As he states in the quote above, he advocates for a broader view. He makes this point even more clear in this letter:
Reply letter to: Letter to the editor Parnia, Sam et al. AWARE – Awareness during resuscitation – A prospective study:
The aims and objectives of the study have been outlined in the manuscript.1 These do not include the study of “philosophical discourses” or “heaven” etc. – but rather the state of the human mind and consciousness (including awareness) during cardiac arrest as well as the human experience of death.1 Furthermore, we did not aim to specifically study so called near-death experiences (NDE's). .1, 2 While Dr Engmann has suggested that a measure of a core NDE does not exist, however, the Greyson Near-Death Experience scale has traditionally been used toThe NDE term, as explained in the manuscript and elsewhere, while often used historically in relation to experiences recalled under a variety of circumstances (including some completely unrelated to clinical illness or death) may no longer be applicable for use in relation to cardiac arrest describe the core features of a NDE.3 For this reason it was also used in our study and has also been used in numerous other studies.
We are intrigued by Dr Engmann's suggestion that our study has been conducted in a non-objective manner based on the fact that we did not limit our study solely to NDE's. In fact,
rather than focusing solely on so called NDE's we examined the broad experience of death, and concluded that the experiences recalled in relation to death are more broad than that described in the past as a NDE. As explained in the methodology and results section of the manuscript the experiences were not classified as real NDE's and non-real NDE's.
To me this seems pretty non-ambiguous. How do you read it? Does it contradict what you've seen from him elsewhere? (Edit: note, I haven't yet watched the video you posted but will do so)
Assume a case identical in every way to the Pam Reynolds case, or the denture case, but replace their experiences with one where the person saw the sun shining and lions and tigers. Assume everything else is the same with regard to the medical procedure, the timing of the experience, etc. Does it change the fundamental issue of how could the person have an experience at that time? With regard to all those non-NDE experiences that Parnia reports, do you assume that none of them occurred when the patient had a flat EEG? That each of them actually had their experience before or after that time?
Note: treating the complete set of experiences rather than a selected subset does not answer the question of whether mind=brain. It provides a more complete picture of the phenomenology and greatly reduces the risk of bias that comes with selected samples. Does anyone think this is incorrect?