I'm not getting your point. I am going to assume that like a lot of people you have a fixed conception of being dead and that is you cease to exist. If you believe that, then I can see how you can compare being dead to being anesthetized.
I'm saying being dead may be far different than being anesthetized:
- You die and cease to exist
- You die and wake up from this computer simulation into an alien world
- You die and wake up in Heaven with the God that you've believed in all your life
- You die and are one with the universal consciousness. You return to the ocean of consciousness like a wave crashing on the shore returns to the sea
- You die and wake up in Nirvana or the body of a pig depending on your Karma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana)
And so on. No one can say being anesthetized is like being dead
The current discussion is under the thread of the original commenter, which says:
"... pretty much deconstructed the whole idea of an afterlife in 20 minutes."
That is, we are under "if (there's no afterlife)" branch.
I am not personally settled on which possibility is the reality. So I think we are in alignment.
We are intending to compare only the first part, i.e., going into the period of blackout. The original commentator's [1] is claiming that the experience of death is similar to the experience of going into blackout with anesthesia. And then, for the latter, the person comes back with partial memories of that going-into phase. Hence the original commentator claims that the experience of death has already been witnessed by many alive people.
I am trying to understand your claim that these these two situations are different.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32250773