One case isn't enough, but there are thousands of corroborated cases, and millions of NDE accounts across the globe. You'll have to read my book when it's released in a few months. — Sam26

One case is enough if you want to discard the idea that the experience arises from brain activity.

Many thanks. So, there was at least one case in which the person experiencing NDE had no brain activity. Case closed!

I'm no expert on DMT. I've listened to many accounts of people who have taken DMT, so I have some knowledge. If I'm an expert in anything, it would be NDEs and Wittgenstein's OC. My expertise is very focused and limited. That said, I'm loath to call myself an expert in any subject. — Sam26

Cool. I am wondering if there is any brain activity during NDEs, or if there was at least one case in which there was no brain activity during the NDE.

An idea IS a mental representation. — noAxioms

Yes, what I am stressing, though, is that it is irreducible.

That is a lot of material. I think you need to open a thread on each topic!

There is literally a surge of brain activity during NDEs, typically gamma waves. — AmadeusD

Do you know of any studies that support this?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4576755/ - this paper is a mishmash, and gives us almost nothing to move the field forward. It is someone employing wishful thinking - trying to lump together psychedelic experiences, NDEs and several other notions. These fall apart at the level of basic scrutiny, given the lack of homogenaiety in any of them. — AmadeusD

Maybe.

I have. I have also spoken at length with Terence's brother Dennis, who is a friend. I have encountered entities. The Elves noted in this video appear in the reportage after Terence became popular. It is not likely, in any way, that these are actual entities. Dennis accepts this, for what that's worth. I have also encountered entities with Mescaline, Psilocybin and Salvia (I do not recommend the latter, at least smoked. It is meant to be chewed fresh). — AmadeusD

Oh, that is a lot of drugs! And, why do you think that your encounters are not referring to real entities?

That's fair, but not what I was getting at - it is not interesting to the field. People hallucinate and image things. Wow. Yknow? — AmadeusD

What is interesting in my experience is that my hallucinations are coherent—my conversations, my visions, my other experiences that I cannot explain with words. Therefore, I believe my experiences may refer to other beings, unless my subconscious mind is deceiving me.

The mind, to me, is defined as an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and create. These abilities are required to cause a coherent change in other substances. The situation becomes a little complex when it comes to thinking and writing, which are abilities of intelligent creatures. You can understand a simple and short sentence by the conscious mind; otherwise, you need the intervention of the subconscious mind when you are dealing with the content of even a paragraph, which is complex. The subconscious mind, to me, is conscious too since its intervention is coherent as well.

What is your definition of the mind?

Again, I was, on the left, bold, referring to the idea of a cup, and on the right, italics, the cup itself. At no point in the comment was any mention of an 'image' made. Had I desired to do that, I would have said 'picture of cup' or some such. — noAxioms

The idea of a cup does not have any part for me! You need to think of a cup without trying to make a mental representation, an image, which you can perceive.

1. If brain activity entirely ceased, it could not be restarted. Vegetative states are not death. That's key. — AmadeusD

I am not an expert in this field, and I just report what an expert says. Perhaps @Sam26 can comment on this more.

2. I am extremely well-informed about DMT. I spent around 10 years intensely embedded in the communities relevant to it including helping to design research protocols, raising funds, public speaking, ceremony and much else besides.. — AmadeusD

Oh, that is interesting. So, you used DMT. Have you ever used it in such a dosage to encounter the Elves mentioned in this video?

3. I see, that's fair enough. I'm unsure there is anything interesting there. — AmadeusD

Or perhaps something is interesting as it is mentioned in the above video. I am a schizophrenic, so I experience weird things all the time. Some of my experiences are interesting.

The brain is not entirely shut down during NDEs. That's why they are NDEs. It doesn't suggest much of anything but that the mind is powerful. — AmadeusD

NDE also occurs in cases in which the brain also shuts down according to researcher: "Near-death experiences (NDEs) are intensely vivid and often life-transforming experiences, many of which occur under extreme physiological conditions such as trauma, ceasing of brain activity, deep general anesthesia or cardiac arrest in which no awareness or sensory experiences should be possible according to the prevailing views in neuroscience."

I also note fairies appeared nowhere in that? — AmadeusD

Have you ever heard of DMT?

What spiritual reality? — AmadeusD

The reality that is hidden from our senses for some reason. The reality we cannot detect it by our instruments either, because they are very light.

I disagree, as noted in my response before. Again, you thinking of liberty of indifference not liberty for excellence. — Bob Ross

I am talking about free will. The ability to do whatever I want, even sin. Does God have such an ability?

Zhavia - 17

NDEs, specifically, are a world away from requiring fairies. — AmadeusD

NDE, to me, refers to the existence of something that experiences when even the brain is shut down. They seem to experience themselves in the form of a ghost as well. Once you accept a ghost as a real thing, a new world will open to you. What about spiritual reality?

I don't think objective truths and falsehoods have a property of location. If they did, they'd be a relative truth, requiring a relation to some sort of coordinate system. — noAxioms

Oh, so you deny that an idea has a location. They are not even close to you, perhaps somewhere in the field of your experiences! How could you possibly write about them if they are not present to you?

Yes, the idea of a cup has many parts, but probably not as many as the actual cup. — noAxioms

I suppose you are referring to an image of a cup that you are creating.

Well, I think this would assume that God has the same kind of foreknowledge as you in this case and that freedom consists in true agent indeterminacy—both of which I reject. When you have foreknowledge, it is temporal; God doesn’t have foreknowledge in the literal sense, because He is outside of change itself. The ‘whole’ is just immediately ‘in front’ of Him; which is different than you knowing something about what is going to happen next. Likewise, I don’t think you have the ability to have done otherwise simpliciter: I think libertarian freedom, leeway freedom, properly consists in the ability to do otherwise than what physically would have happened.

Now, you could say that if you had this ‘whole’ of all change ‘in front’ of you like God then you could go against God. Ok, but then you are God.

Now, if you have foreknowledge in the literal sense and know that God wants you to do something, X, but choose not to; well, that’s standard free will which doesn’t negate anything I said. God would know you will choose not to do X and that would be a part of His knowledge of ‘the whole’. — Bob Ross

I can do the opposite of God's foreknowledge if I am a free agent and have access to His foreknowledge. I know that is not acceptable in your view, but I am able to do it since I am free. That is the same ability that keeps us responsible for our actions. If you think that is not an acceptable problem in your view, then you have to either agree that I am not free or that Foreknowledge does not exist. Which one do you pick?

Yes, God is absolutely free and absolutely incapable of doing otherwise in my view. This is fundamentally because freedom for excellence, as opposed to freedom of indifference, does not require the ability to have done otherwise. — Bob Ross

So, God can sin since He is free! Agree, or disagree?

I think that the idea of fairies is important when it comes to reality, since we cannot explain out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, etc., without them. There is one thread on NDE. There is another thread on what the soul is. That is all I am aware of. Perhaps there are more.

But you cannot falsify that fairies are untrue, given that our instruments are not precise enough.

Well, why do you reject it if you know it is actually false? I think we should consider all hypotheses unless we can show that some of them are false.

Sure, as night pointed out, rejecting does not mean accepting it as false. — AmadeusD

I understand that. So he does not accept the hypothesis since?

The truth of the sum of 2 and 2 being 4 seems to objectively exist, yet isn't considered a substance by many. — noAxioms

And where is the truth if it is not in the mind?

I have a hard time coming up with other examples. None of the things I think have objective existence are substances. — noAxioms

Could we agree that something that exists is either objective or subjective?

Disagree. Ideas have parts, but those parts are not objects or substances. I have patented ideas, and those ideas had a lot of parts. I've never patented an object of any kind. — noAxioms

"Cup" refers to an idea. Does such an idea have parts?

1) I don't accept your given, and 2) as usual, your conclusion does not follow from your given premise. — noAxioms

So, you have an explanation of how ideas emerge and can affect the physical world, given my definition of an idea? I would be happy to hear that!

If you think that the mind exists on its own and the body exists too, then you are a substance dualist! What is your definition of mind, by the way?

To experience, freely decide, and create are examples of abilities that only mind-sort substances have. Mind-sort substances have properties as well, such as location and other properties; let's call the set of properties that mind-sort substances have X. Non-mind-sort substances, such as matter, have a set of properties as well, such as mass, location, etc., let's call the set of properties that non-mind-sort substances have Y. X is a subset of Y; otherwise, mind-sort substances neither could affect non-mind-sort substances nor could be affected.

I don't think so.

Olivia Rodrigo - Vampire

Thanks. I, however, disagree with his final thought in which he mentioned that an amount of energy might dissipate to higher dimensions if we collide two particles hard enough. Higher dimensions might be wrapped such that no dissipation occurs when you hit two particles hard enough.

Right. Single molecules of water cannot be wet. Wetness is a property of groups of molecules, because of the way they bond under certain conditions. And the molecules bond the way they do under those conditions because of their properties. — Patterner

Correct.

In this Ted Talk, Brian Greene gives a good talk about those strings, among other things. — Patterner

The link refers to one of my posts. You may want to correct the link, which I think is this one.

"Cup" refers to an idea. "My cup", however, refers to a new idea in my mind that objectively exists near me too. When you read this sentence, the idea of "my cup" appears to you as well, so there are two ideas in the minds of two individuals. You even have a different impression when I say that "my cup" is broken. So, what "my cup" refers to different ideas depending on how it is used in a sentence.

The 'unity of experience' raises questions because it involves so much. Plotinus's idea of the 'One' is useful though. That is because it links the nature of subjective experience to the wider sense of consciousness as a source. — Jack Cummins

If the "One" you mean the mind, then we are on the same page.

I must mention that non-mind-sort substances possess properties, whereas mind-sort substances possess abilities and properties. Mind-sort substances are irreducible only, whereas non-mind-sort substances can be irreducible (like ideas) or reducible (like a cup).

Ray Lamontagne - Shelter

I will read the rest of your response later and reply to it. I am sincerely sorry. I am short on time.

As far as process philosophy is concerned, things can be conceptualized as clusters of actual and potential processes. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think we can agree that God is simple and irreducible. To me, that is the definition of the mind, too. The mind is a substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and create. These abilities are needed to guarantee that a change in things could exist, such as ideas that we are entertaining right now. Mind itself can do one thing at any given moment since it is simple, so I think more minds are involved in intelligent creatures like humans. God, however, is a different beast. It is a mind, but has access to Knowledge. God has the ability to create stuff, too. Our minds create ideas always. The act of creation and the point that God exists must lie at the same point, though since otherwise you need a time, you need time for time, etc. which leads to a regress. The act of creation was necessary, too, necessary in the sense that it was a must-do since no other points were available to God. Saying all these, I think God/mind is not subject to change, going from potentiality to actuality, whereas the stuff, non-mind thing, such as matter, are subject to change, so they are going from potentiality to actuality. So we have two sorts of substances, mind-sort and non-mind-sort.

So why do you need more? You seem to be in full agreement with all that I said. What do you think as essence is, that you have not invoked “essence” by talking about a being that objectively exists with a particular set of properties? — Fire Ologist

You miss the abilities. Other than that, we are on the same page. Now, going back to the Trinity, why are three beings with different properties and abilities needed? To me, a single being with the ability to create and who is knowledgeable suffices.

Essence is whatness. — Fire Ologist

And what is whatness?

A being is something that objectively exists and has a set of properties and abilities. The properties allow us to distinguish between one being and another being. A being without ability cannot act, so abilities are necessary as well. So to me, the set of properties and abilities completely explains a being. Could you please tell me what is missing when it comes to a being, what you call an essence, if it is not a property or an ability? If by essence you may mean a set of properties and abilities, then I would be quite happy to accept otherwise, you need to explain what the essence is.

Panpsychism cannot explain the unity of experience.

A system is composed of its parts. — Manuel

Correct.

A single H20 molecule does not have the properties of water. — Manuel

Correct.

And we don't understand how, by combining them together water could arise, because each individual molecule shows no "wetness". — Manuel

We understand how. The properties of water are functions of the properties of parts. We can also simulate water.

You are correct that we have good theories on speed, mass, spin. I doubt they are intuitive. If they were, we would have figured out the chemistry behind them much earlier than we did. At least, that's how it looks like to me. — Manuel

It is just not easy to have an intuition for how the properties of a particle can be explained in terms of the vibration of the string. I am not a string theorist, so I cannot tell you how a certain vibration leads to a particular property, but I am sure string theorists have good intuition about this.

Is the sentence "Think of a meaningful sentence" meaningful? — Manuel

It is. It is about a special request. You think about a sentence when you read this sentence.

If it is, the meaning seems to be emergent on the order of the words. — Manuel

Correct. The meaning is a strong emergence.

Now you say an idea is something that emerges once you complete reading the sentence. — Manuel

Correct.

How is the idea more that the sentence, if you say that a completed sentence is an idea? I'm trying to understand. — Manuel

No, I am not saying that completing a sentence is an idea. I am saying an idea emerges when you complete reading a sentence.

But Nagel also sees this as an argument in support of panpsychism: If consciousness really arises from matter, then the mental must in some way be present in the basic constituents of matter. On this view, consciousness is not an inexplicable product of complex organization but a manifestation of properties already present in the fundamental building blocks of the world. — Wayfarer

I think panpsychism fails to explain the unity of experience; therefore, it is not acceptable.

Do you have the intuition that prior to combination a particle contains water in it? I don't. We have a theory yes, but I don't know someone who says that it was evident all along that particles have water in them, you can't see it, touch it, etc. until the experiment comes about. — Manuel

I don't understand what you mean by particles have water in them! Water refers to a system of H2O molecules. We have a good intuition on why water changes its behavior in terms of the properties of its parts. We even have good intuition on why parts have these and those properties, such as speed, mass, spin, etc. These properties are the result of the string vibrating in different forms.

Some emergence is more shocking to us that others, consciousness out of matter vs. liquidity in particles. — Manuel

Consciousness, to me, is the ability of the mind, the ability to experience.

But what do you gain by saying one is strong and the other is weak, if you lack intuitions (not theories) for both? — Manuel

Think of a meaningful sentence. The sentence is weak emergence. An idea, however, emerges once you complete reading the sentence. The emergence of the idea is strong since the idea is more than the sentence, and it is irreducible.

Bill Withers - Ain't No Sunshine



Evvie McKinney - Ain't No Sunshine