UpirLikhyj,
Re: "You again miss the point. It's not the "when" that matters... it's the "what" that was witnessed far from the body, then retained and returned with the person upon revival that was then verified as having actually occurred."
I absolutely disagree. If you're talking about the supposed tunnel of light, then it's absolutely all about the when. And since the tunnel of light is the common claim among many NDEs that's of significant importance.
If the person holds a memory of the tunnel of light as a consequence of the brain shutting down or reviving, then it has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of out of the body experience as is commonly asserted. So let's not mix the tunnel with the proclaimed recall of distant events. For one, the when is absolutely paramount to the claim, for the other, it's of lesser significance.
Re: "This is the evidence that proves the experience was not just a dying brain hallucinating something unreal... but instead, a spirit of some sort that left the body, briefly roamed far from that body, saw and witnessed events as they happened, then returned to the body upon revival and retained the memory of those actual events!
It "proves" no such thing. Not unless you're willing to assert that people claiming to have seen Elvis after his death "proves" that he wasn't dead or that he rose from the dead. People make all kinds of claims. Some claim to be abducted by UFOs, others claim to see Elvis, some claim to have seen bigfoot, some even claimed that the Hale-Bopp comet was a shielding device for a space craft bound for Nirvana. Do we simply accept these claims because they support our pet beliefs or do we apply a reasonable degree of skepticism?
Dena Schlosser "claimed" that God wanted her to take a knife and cut the arms off her baby daughter. Her daughter died. Does the claim make it true?
David Koresh "claimed" to be the Messiah. Does the claim make it true?
Barbara Feldon (Agent-99 on the old "Get Smart" series), "claimed" to have been floating above her body during surgery. Does that make it true?
I'm guessing you'll look at those and disbelieve the first two and accept the third because the first two disagree with your pre-conceived beliefs and the third fits with them. When the only criteria we apply in the acceptance of any claim is how well it fits our pre-conceptions, we can never learn anything but what we have already decided to believe. Learning stops.
Re: "What you attempt repeatedly to gloss over as merely "memories" is, in fact, the proof you so vehemently refuse to acknowledge.
You can ignore this if you wish but I'm offering it as friendly advice for the purpose of any kind of disparate discussion or debate; avoid the use of the word "proof". From an evidentiary point of view, it's meaningless. It's a completely unattainable standard. We can demonstrate all kinds of conclusive evidence that shows that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. Yet there are people unconvinced by that evidence (Flat Earthers). Does that make it other than proof? The problem is that you get into who does or doesn't have to be convinced in order to qualify as "proof". And that's one of the reasons that science doesn't use the word "proof", doesn't operate on proof and doesn't claim to produce proof.
With that understanding what you're offering is neither "proof" (an unattainable standard), nor is it conclusive evidence. It's nothing more than hearsay corroborated between two or more people. To discuss the validity of the any specific instance to any greater degree requires isolating the specifics of an isolated example. If you wish to do that, pick one.
And if... IF we find one which appears to be completely solid, then we have evidence of an unexplained phenomena and that's all. Otherwise, a crowd of 100 people could observe a street illusionist like Chris Angel appear to walk unsuspended from one rooftop to another and we have "proof" that a man can walk on thin air. Do you believe that? Have you watched the illusion yourself? We understand that it's an illusion but I don't know of anyone who can explain the illusion so that we can understand the mechanisms employed. So we would have everything you have for your claimed "proof". We have someone doing something thought by science to be impossible and a crowd of people willing to corroborate the event. Fortunately, most of us have our skepticism to guide us away from jumping to false and ridiculous conclusions.
Jumping to the conclusion that because someone seems to know about a distant event which occurred while they were unconscious in a room with several other people, that it conclusively demonstrates the concept of spirit is just that... jumping to a conclusion. You pick what you've heard and chosen to believe and insert that in place of an answer. This is the same thing people did when they developed volcano gods. They didn't know anything about vulcanology so they simply inserted a concept they did know -- gods.
And the key thing to note is that they were wrong. And the vast majority of the time when one jumps to a conclusion to fill in an unknown, the very same thing will happen -- they'll be wrong. It's a pattern which has repeated itself over and over and over throughout history but some people simply refuse to learn from the near total consistency of arriving at the wrong conclusion by jumping to conclusions designed to pacify their unverified beliefs rather than following the evidence.
If...
... again "IF" we have even one valid, verifiable, instance of a person actually attaining knowledge of a distant event while they were unconscious in the presence of other people, then what we have is an "unknown", not "proof of spirits". And until you can fill in the "if" with a verifiable instance, we don't have to worry about the unknown. It becomes just as subject to healthy scrutiny as any other unlikely claim.
You seem to forget one of the greatest truths in all of discovery; "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You have a lot of claims and you have some hearsay. If you have more than hearsay, then you should present it. When you have extraordinary evidence, then you'll have an actual argument. Until then, you have at best, an unknown which you keep trying to fill in with your preconceived notion of "spirits".
You're doing exactly the same thing people did a thousand years ago when they concluded that disease was caused by spirits. It's exactly the same thing people did when they decided that knocking on wood could ward off unwanted events after mentioning the avoidance of such events. It's superstition, not science. And the conclusions are assumptions, not proofs and not conclusive evidences.
