I don't mind disagreement, don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to understand your position.

I've read and listened to many thousands of NDEs and have heard people talk about living other lives. I'm not sure of the percentage that make this claim, it's not very high. I'll try to give you a link to one of the testimonials.

Your argument is mostly speculation, and based on what's possible. Lots of things are possible, but not very probable. You don't give any evidence.

We do have some evidence based on testimonials of past lives, and some of what might happen later, but not much. You say reincarnation, and that is based on Eastern religions I presume, but I don't see any evidence to support that idea, only metaphysical speculation.

I don't know of any metaphysical support for past lives.

I thought some of you might be interested in Sir Roger Penrose's talk on "The Quantum Nature of Consciousness." It's just a short discussion. However, if you're interested in some of his longer discussions, Youtube has those videos too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg

I don't think the evidence for past lives is credible based on the testimonials of memories alone. I do think there is support though based on NDE testimonials, and if one couples those reports with other reports, such as those who have had DMT experiences, then it seems to me that there is evidence to support the idea.

This idea of absolute or relative "levels of awareness" sounds highly implausible given the close correspondence of OBEs, NDEs and lucid dreaming and how each supposedly distinct category of experience lacks any essential identifier, with examples of each 'category' spanning the conceivable spectrum of conscious experience, each example emphasising different sensory modalities and parts of volitional agency, language processing, attention and memory , that aren't always amplified or attenuated in the same direction. — sime

I'm not sure I follow your point. You don't see how levels of awareness change between dream states and waking states? Moreover, there is no correspondence between NDEs and lucid dreaming in the sense that they are even close to equivalent. One knows when one is having a lucid dream, at least most of us do, and lucid dreams have a dreamlike quality that's not even close to what we experience on an everyday basis. NDEs, as I'm contending, are as reality like as you can get, in fact people claim that it's more real than real, it's hyper-real.

Of course there are different sensory modalities. There are different sensory modalities in our everyday experiences. The question is, why aren't these experiences veridical? Your claims seem to be very general. I've given you the reasons why I think they're veridical.

The probability is based on the criteria of what makes testimonial evidence strong, which I gave on page one. So based on numbers of reports, variety of reports, consistency of reports, first-hand accounts, and objective corroboration, one can infer that (as in an inductive argument) there is strong support for the conclusion.

We do this all the time based on testimonial evidence, this is nothing new. For example, if you have 20 people who witnessed an accident you can draw certain conclusions based on the testimony of the witnesses, that is, you can determine how likely it is that something occurred. Moreover, you can do it with the 5 criteria I used. Thus, as I argued, again based on the strength of the testimonials, I can reasonably say there is a high probability that consciousness survives bodily death.

Post #4

Continuing with where I believe the evidence leads (post #1 starts on page 9 of this thread).

Whether one agrees with my claim that consciousness doesn't reside in the brain or not, one thing seems clear, and that is, there are levels of consciousness. And it also seems clear that it would follow that there would be similarities between moving from one level of consciousness to another level of consciousness. It also seems very clear that the fact that there are levels of consciousness is not in itself evidence that consciousness doesn't reside in the brain. However, taken together with NDE accounts, it seems very probable that consciousness is not dependent on brain function or brain activity, that is, it's certainly reasonable to make this inference. Moreover, my argument is dependent on the veracity of the testimonials, and as far as I understand this is the only credible evidence that demonstrates that consciousness is not brain dependent.

Although the main contention of this thread is to demonstrate that there are good reasons to conclude that consciousness doesn't reside in the brain, and that this is the strongest conclusion one can make based on the testimonials. However, in these numbered posts I also believe that there are other conclusions one can make based on the testimonials, but that most of the conclusions aren't as likely or as probable as the conclusion that consciousness is not brain dependent.

This particular post will reiterate the importance, I believe, of comparing a level of consciousness that we are all aware of, with what happens in an NDE. In particular what happens when moving from a lower level of consciousness to a higher level, and conversely, moving from a higher level of consciousness to a lower level of consciousness. So the analogy I'm speaking of is the analogy between dream states and waking states, and waking states and NDEs. We know, for example, that moving into a dream state is moving from a higher level of awareness to a lower level of awareness. We also know that in lower levels of consciousness we don't have full access to our waking sensory experiences, nor do we have full access to our waking memories, and it would also follow that don't have access to our waking knowledge. It's also important to note that the passage of time is distorted, at least the way time is perceived. For example, in dream states we may perceive that many minutes have passed, when in fact, it was only seconds. This distortion is also seen when moving from waking states to the experience of an NDE. When moving into an NDE the passage of time seems much slower than what we normally experience, that is, it appears that in NDEs we perceive to have been there much longer. For example, many NDErs report that it seemed like years, decades, even centuries passed while they were there. Of course when they come back into this reality only minutes, hours, or days have passed. The conclusion seems to indicate that the passage of time in lower states of consciousness seem much longer than they actually are. Dream states are shorter in duration when compared to waking reality, and waking reality is shorter in duration when compared to an NDE.

So if NDEs are higher levels of consciousness we should find that the experiences have very similar effects. When moving from dream states to waking states our sensory experiences are definitely heightened, our memories are more complete, our knowledge is more complete, and the passage of time changes. NDErs report these very same things, and this it seems to me adds to the veracity of the reports. How? I doubt that any of the NDErs would know the correlation between these states of consciousness, yet their reports conform to these perceptual changes. For example, they report that they have heightened sensory perceptions. Their are many vision reports that talk about expanded vision, colors that they have never seen before, and there is some evidence that the blind are able to see while in an NDE. There are also many reports of knowledge being expanded, and memories returning. This is what should happen based on what we know about moving into higher states of consciousness, that is, we have an example of this when moving from dream states to waking states.

You guys are taking the thread in a different direction. I was looking at the evidence based on NDEs, and where the evidence leads.

Post #3

So why are we here? The question that comes to my mind is, why do we choose to come to a place like this? Imagine a place where there is very little or even no pain. Also imagine a place where the relationships we have with others is far superior to anything we can experience here. Where our access to knowledge is unimaginably superior to what we have here. A place where communication is mind-to-mind, with probably little chance of any misunderstandings. A place where love is not limited to a few people you know, but is accessed and shared amongst many billions of persons. The intensity of the love and other positive emotions is not only shared on a scale unimaginable here, but you also seem to have access to it in ways we don't have here. In a sense it's the perfect place to live, and it's our home, where we reside, possibly as being of pure light, united into a sea of pure consciousness, or pure mind (my certainty of us being beings of pure consciousness or mind is around 1, maybe lower).

Now imagine that you have access to an unlimited source of realities or universes that you can exist in, and that you can experience almost anything you can imagine, by choosing to enter those realities. However, you hear of a reality that's really tough, that if you go there you won't remember where you're from, and that you'll have very limited knowledge. You will also be able to choose a body that will limit you in many other ways. Moreover, you choose to come with people and friends you know, so it's a kind of collective experience. This place is very similar to a holographic program, and as a human in the program you will get to experience something that's very foreign to you, i.e., pain. Being in the bodies we choose will make you susceptible to all sorts of painful experiences. You're told that it's going to be an extremely difficult life, but you'll get to choose various narratives to live out, and even choose how and when you will die. You may choose to live out a particular religious narrative, atheistic narrative, scientific narrative, family narrative, etc. Much of what you experience in this reality will be pre-planned, but you will be free to respond within these narratives based on your limited knowledge of right and wrong, and based on your limited bodily abilities. So you have some freedom of choice, but not complete freedom. Furthermore what we choose to experience doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what we want to experience, but with what others may want to experience. So we may come just to help others have certain kinds of experiences (most of the ideas in this paragraph fall between 3 and 4 on the certainty scale).

I'm going to speculate a bit more, and I have little to no evidence that this is the case. If this is indeed a giant holographic program or reality, then it might be the case that some of the people in the program aren't even real, they're just part of the program. And why not, because one of the ways to control the program would be by controlling some of the entities within the program. Maybe even some people are completely aware of what's going on, that is, they're just playing a part in the program.

Finally, there is no one reason why we come here. Instead there are many reasons why we choose to come here. First, we gain experiential knowledge of what it's like to be human, and we test ourselves in ways we've never been tested before.

Post #2

Let me give an example of how I interpreted some of the testimonials about hell. I do this to give you an idea of how I examined these testimonials, which can be based as much on what is said, as opposed to what is not said.

As I said in post #1 how we interpret what we see is often influenced by religious and cultural biases. Thus someone who feels fear or is in a dark place may feel they're in hell. Keep in mind that negative reports, or negative NDEs are a small portion of the total NDEs, most are positive. Moreover, out of the portion of negative reports, an even smaller percentage are hell like. However, there is more to this than it just being a small percentage of the reports. For example, what's not said to people who have these experiences, or even to those who don't have hell like experiences, is that you're in danger of going to hell. You would think that people who see loved ones who have died, or even other beings that display love to a much higher degree than is felt here, that there would be some warning that you're in danger of hell. I see no such warnings, even when people are given a life review, that is, the life review is non-judgmental. Furthermore, people are seeing their deceased loved ones who were atheists or non-believers (non-Christian for e.g.) in a state of love and joy that belies the notion of eternal damnation. So what's my degree of certainty that there isn't a hell, like the one described by Christians? At least a 4-5.

The following numbered posts are going to be my views of reality based on NDE testimonials, that is, where I believe the evidence leads.
Post #1

I'm going to try to give those of you who are interested the best picture I can of what we are experiencing in this reality, that is, what is it all about. I'm also going to divide my degree of certainty from between 1 and 5. Five being the most certain, and one being the least certain. However, even the 1 will be based on some testimonial evidence. I'm estimating here, but the degree of certainty of a 1 is about 50-60%, 2 is 60-70%, 3 is 70-80%, 4 is 80-90%, and finally 5 is 90-99%. I will also speculate about some things, but even the speculation will be based on some evidence, however, it will be lower than a 1, but not zero evidence. So if there is a number attached to a statement, that number will reflect how certain I think I am about the statement. Keep in mind that even a number 1 is based on thousands and thousands of testimonials. A number 5 is based on millions of testimonial reports. My sampling is around 4000, so I'm extrapolating.

Before going on let me say a few things about why I'm not putting much stock in religious interpretations. After examining the testimonials across many cultures I have found, and many others who have examined the evidence have found, that, for example, if someone sees a being of light, they will probably interpret the being of light as some religious figure. So it's not that they didn't see a being, but that their interpretation of that being tends to be conflated with their religious and/or cultural beliefs (degree of certainty is 4-5). Those of you who are trying to fit NDEs into your religious views are doing, in my opinion, a disservice to the testimonials.

This is an interesting NDE of someone who has been blind since birth. Listen to how she describes her NDE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKyQJDZuMHE

Second NDE of blind person.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA8L9W7KiOo

But that belief itself is "groundless" or aesthetically grounded. — t0m

Some beliefs are groundless, but not all beliefs. Many of our beliefs have a causal explanation. I would say that the causal connection between much of what we believe and psychological factors is very strong. Even if we claim to have a strong argument for a particular belief, the psychology of belief can be even more compelling, that is, in terms of why we believe what we do. For example, things like ego, culture, family, friends, religion, politics, world views, and many other narratives, have a much stronger pull on our belief system than we like to admit. Probably much stronger than any argument are these causal factors.

Ya, and I was 28 in 1978, so I'm getting up there.

Wow, philosophy 101, I took that class in 1978. lol It was Plato that got me interested in philosophy.

But what if reality is monstrous? IMO, it's hard not to love the intelligent more than the unintelligent, the healthy more the sick, the beautiful more than the ugly. One might decide that life isn't fair. A cynical or critical mind could postulate that philosophers often work to cover up this monstrousness. Ideas of cosmic justice or God can be viewed as "shields" against the otherwise blatant injustice and cruelty of reality.

Parenting comes to mind. Parents try to be fair. They try to create a "little world" for their children, where children are rewarded and punished justly, always for their own good in the context of unconditional love. One could theorize that theodicies are ways that adults try to continue this situation past childhood. We dream up immortal souls because it's just too painful to see the little girl die of cancer or the brain-damaged adult float through life as a dependent. — t0m

I agree with some of what you're saying, but what one believes in terms of their world view should hang on the evidence to support the argument. For example, even if there is good evidence to support an immortal soul, people will still want to believe it because it gives them hope. However, if you're just believing something because it sounds good, or it gives you hope, that's not a reason to believe.

For me the materialist world view is almost as bad in some ways as a religious view, both tend to be very dogmatic and self-sealing.

I don't subscribe to complete skepticism, but a healthy skepticism.

There are several issues here that I'm not sure I can address in this one post, but I'll try to be concise and to the point.

I don't think there is any deductive proof that will work, that is, that proves the existence of the soul. I would argue that you don't need a proof to have knowledge.

If one defines greater or lesser in terms of one's ability to do X, then I guess there are greater and lesser souls or persons. I believe that persons have intrinsic worth that goes beyond one's ability, and that one's intrinsic worth demands that we treat people with respect, and that we treat them justly. I don't believe this is dependent upon one's belief in God, or some other lawgiver. I believe one could make an argument in terms of justice or other moral issues based on the nature of human beings, or on the basis of what it means to be a person (person, for me is a much broader definition). Much of what we believe about these moral issues is dependent of course on one's world view.

I don't see how it's monstrous to believe there are persons with greater or lesser souls. Unless one thinks that that gives one the right to treat persons with a lesser soul unjustly. I don't happen to think that justice is a matter of opinion, that is, I see it more objectively. Moreover, I see it this way apart from my belief about an afterlife. Even if one believes that when we die that's the end of our existence, this still doesn't give someone the right to act unjustly.

There is also something more to what I believe, that goes beyond the physical. I don't believe that we can ultimately be harmed if the NDE reports are accurate. And since harm is an essential property of evil or immoral actions, then ultimately there is no evil. There is only what we refer to as evil in terms of this reality. So is there evil? Yes and no, there is evil in terms of how we describe certain acts in this reality, but ultimately there is no evil, because ultimately we cannot be harmed. When I say ultimately, I mean in a higher consciousness or awareness, thus a higher reality. That higher reality is where our identity resides, where all our memories and experiences reside.

There is no doubt that our bodies are harmed, and that we feel pain in this reality, but if when we die this is all mitigated, then ultimately there is no evil. Thus, in a sense, there is no evil in terms of requiring justice. Especially if it's true that we chose to come into this existence knowing what we would experience. This, I believe, would also solve the problem of evil.

Think of this reality as a lower level of consciousness, and a lower level of sensory perceptions. The best analogy is that of a dream. In a dream all of our memories, knowledge, and experiences reside in our waking body. While we are dreaming we may experience dream pain, dream knowledge, and dream experiences, but once we wake up everything is expanded, and much of what we experienced in the dream is mitigated by our higher level of consciousness. It's not that we didn't have the dream experiences, it's that the dream experiences don't have the impact we thought they did. The same is true when one compares this reality with an even higher level of reality or sensory experiences. Much of what we experience here is also mitigated, especially in terms of harm.

I've been studying these accounts for about 12 years, and I've read many of the deathbed visions along with DMT reports. I've also read many other accounts associated with OBEs. Negative reports are only a very small portion of the total reports, but they do happen. Most of the religious reports are dependent upon what someone already believes according to their culture, etc. I don't think any religion captures the essence of these reports. It's my belief based on what I've read and listened to that not only has religion got the afterlife wrong, but also the materialistic world view has it wrong too. Moreover, those who are trying to make these reports into something religious will inevitably fail, because it seems as soon as we do that we get too dogmatic.

I try to keep the conclusions in terms of what I think I know to a minimum, and I try to separate that from speculation. Although, there is a middle ground where it's not totally speculative, that is, there is some evidence, but I don't categorize it as knowledge. It's more of a strong belief based on good evidence, just not strong evidence. The best example I can give is that instead of it being 90% probable it might only be 50-60% probable.

It's my belief based on my studies over the years that dogma is the enemy of truth. Whether it's religious dogma, scientific dogma, atheistic dogma, or political dogma, it doesn't matter when we're trying to accumulate knowledge. I'm talking generally here, that is, there are some things we can be dogmatic or absolutist about, but generally speaking if you have a world view that's too dogmatic, you're going to find yourself on the wrong end of knowledge. On the other hand, you don't want to be so open-minded that you become susceptible to everything that comes down the pike. So healthy skepticism is a good thing, but if you allow dogmatism and ego to dictate what you believe, then your not really concerned with truth.

It's interesting that people who study Jujitsu for many years are people who have to let the ego go to some extent. No matter how good they are, or how much they think they know, they're going to get beat by someone. Many people drop out because they can't handle losing to someone that's ranked a little below them. It's only as people let go of their egos that they're able to progress and continue to learn. I've noticed that many philosophers, and people in general, will hold on to a belief because of ego, myself included, so I put this out there for those of you who are only interested in learning. It's also for those of you who aren't afraid to have your beliefs tested by others. All of us can be beaten, in terms of what we think we know.

This analysis is also important in determining the reality of NDEs.

Characteristics of Near-Death Experiences Memories as Compared to Real and Imagined Events Memories

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3609762/

And another interesting article for those of you who are interested.

https://books.google.com/books?id=110oDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT198&lpg=PT198&dq=statistical+analysis+of+near+death+experiences&source=bl&ots=rGwkDIdGsd&sig=UsTYfGpt08BAXwM6zKKUY5Gh9PY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKtaGWtfXWAhVGQiYKHaAWAhAQ6AEIZDAJ#v=onepage&q=statistical%20analysis%20of%20near%20death%20experiences&f=false

If you have time read the following. It might answer some of your questions.

http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Greyson/Greyson-The%20Journal%20of%20Nervous%20and%20Mental%20Disease_1983-171-369-375.pdf

If you have time the following is also Dr. Greyson talking about consciousness at a conference. It's rather long though. If you want to go straight to his talk about NDEs, it starts at around 28:33.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aWM95RuMqU

I haven't forgotten your last post. I'll get to it. It's a bit hard to follow though.

How would a conclusion in this instance benefit you. Sure there is much evidence to support a theory that consciousness survives the body but there would certainly be many questions which could not be answered which would/should make one hesitate in making any conclusion especially if making a conclusion was not necessary. — Another

For me knowledge is intrinsically good, and in terms of NDEs I think it would be a good thing to expand our knowledge of consciousness. While it's true that there are many questions which we will not be able to answer, that shouldn't deter us from our quest. There will always be questions. In fact, the more I learn the more questions I have.

Even with everything we know about body and mind today without actually crossing the threshold of life and death this is question that could not be answered conclusively. — Another

We don't need to answer questions conclusively to have knowledge. Some of our knowledge is absolute, but most of it, or much of it, is based on what's probably the case, that is, a high degree of probability.

As stupid as it sounds I still ponder these thing continuously but this has never been a fruitful exercise. (I will certainly continue to ponder as well) — Another

It's not stupid, and don't let the view of others diminish your search for knowledge. Thinking outside the box is a good thing, as long as you don't get so far outside the box that you lose sight of the box.

Debating this or trying to convince someone this without more than a blurry picture and idea and with no means of obtaining indisputable evidence is questionable.
Certainly explore and ponder, it would be foolish to ignore what's happening around you but again I don't believe you can possibly find an answer.

I would enjoy little more than you proving me wrong though. — Another

I don't believe that what I presented is a blurry picture. I thinks it's quite clear. However, it took years of studying these NDEs to come to that conclusion. I don't expect, nor do I hope to convince anyone of anything, at least that's what I tell myself (lol). In an idealistic world it's all about the argument, that is, the framework used to present the evidence. Don't confuse the term argument with dispute, it's about how your statements follow from one another. It sure isn't the kind of debating that we see in our public forums, which is for the most part yelling, name calling, etc. However, as you can see in this thread, mostly it's done in a very respectful way. Sometimes we get agitated, but arguments are about reasons for belief, not about personalities or emotions.

And as for an answers, I do believe that I have found some answers, but mostly questions.

I don't think that we'll make much more progress since we're at the stage of saying the other person has not answered previous points. I presented the previous arguments I made as if I had demonstrated them, I believe they're conclusive - but of course I could be wrong. This impasse is unfortunate — fdrake

I thought I addressed most of your argument, but maybe I missed some of your points. I addressed some of it in a general way because I'm not sure if an analysis like the one you propose has ever been done. Also, I don't think that such an analysis is needed to reasonably conclude that these NDEs are veridical. Our main disagreement is over the consistency of the testimonials.

I took some drugs once and had a trip. I saw Mario jump out of the closet in my room. I didn't for one second believe Mario was there. There's definitely the possibility for non-equivalence between the content of the experience and what things in the environment generated it (specifically for me it was the drug, not a hidden Mario in the closet). I take descriptions of NDEs as accurate descriptions of what the people experienced (a truism), but not necessarily in accord with what actually happened. Without actually going through all the papers (an exercise I believe unlikely to provide sufficient evidence that consciousness leaves the body). The filters I described are examples of standard procedures to remove confounding variables to allow for causal claims to be made. Just generating an accurate statement (after filter application) still isn't sufficient to show that NDE experiences peer beyond the veil. — fdrake

I might have second thoughts about your Mario example if millions of people were seeing the same thing. However, because a few people see Mario that sure wouldn't warrant believing that the experience was more than a subjective experience, not in accord with objective reality.

I also addressed the idea that your filters are reasonable, but since there are no studies showing that your filters have done the job of weakening the testimonials, I'm not sure what else I can say. Other than you're correct that such a study should be done.

You seem to be saying, sorry if I'm incorrect, that since these filters are possible defeaters, that I should reject the testimonials.

That’s what I’m trying to get at. What does that statement mean? What religious baggage does reincarnation carry?
.
Is it that, because you’re an Atheist, any subject, statement or word that comes from a religion is thereby ruled-out?
.
If suggestions or proposals have come to us from a millennia-old tradition, does that, for you, discredit them? — Michael Ossipoff

What I mean by religious baggage is all the dogma that people believe based on very little evidence, or based on ancient writings that have very little support. This is my view in general about religion. However, that said, it's my contention that the belief in reincarnation originally came from NDE reports, because there are many reports of past lives in NDEs. It may be the case that all religions started from NDE reports.

By the way, why do you assume I'm an atheist? Maybe I'm an agnostic, or maybe I believe there's a God, but that that God doesn't fit within the framework of any religious dogma.

Just because beliefs come from traditions that are thousands of years old, that in itself doesn't make them untrue, or for that matter it doesn't make them true. I try to go where the evidence leads, even if that evidence goes against one's world view. The goal is knowledge and nothing else.

Finally, you say that continuity of experience is all you need for continuity of the person. But how would you know that you have continuity of experience if you don't remember your experiences?

My two-cents:

Testimonial statements need to satisfy the following criteria:

1. The person must be reliable i.e. s/he must be honest.

2. The testimony must fit in with the existing knowledge framework. I think this is your criteria of consistency.

3. Corroboration is a plus point, especially if varied - men, women, animals, instruments, etc.

Testimonial statements re ''consciousness surviving the body'' fail on 2 and 3 - at least that's'what they say. — TheMadFool

Criteria (1) is very important, however, it's hard to believe that millions of reports with very similar accounts aren't reliable, or that they aren't honest. This is why most critics try to discount them in other ways.

Criteria (2) is important up to a point, that is, we can't let existing knowledge be the final arbiter in terms of what we believe, or we wouldn't move beyond our present knowledge. However, your point is well taken.

Finally, my evaluation of the NDEs doesn't suggest at all that criteria (1) and (2) are points of failure.

My intention is to respond to everyone, but if I miss someone, you'll have to forgive my feeble mind.

I'm not sure one can establish a minimum criteria for what consciousness is, or when consciousness leaves a body, other than one is seeing oneself from a third person perspective - maybe the third person perspective is the minimum requirement. However, if this is all we had it probably wouldn't be convincing, at least to me. I did divide NDEs into three categories, from the very short NDEs (cat 1), and category 2 and 3 being more elaborate, that is, more detailed reports. However, the lines between each category are blurred, because there is overlap in the reports.

Key questions of the first argument: what are the relevant qualities of testimonial data to be included as part of an analysis of whether NDE experiences are veridical? And this is tied to the question: what would evidence for NDEs being veridical look like?

(1) Reducing the effective sample size of testimonials to ones which are relevant for studying whether the accurate statements arose because of the NDE.
(1i) This was done through applying the aforementioned filters on observational data to preclude confounding factors, leaving few testimonials.
(2)If NDEs were in the aggregate veridical, we would expect accurate descriptions during NDEs because of NDEs to be common.
(2)i This is established through the door analogy. If a person is exposed to a door, they will see a door if the door is there because the door is there (if it's there). This would give a high proportion of accurate descriptions in those cases which satisfy the criteria.
(3) We do not observe many cases of NDEs that satisfy the filters.
(4) The rarity of accurate descriptions in testimonials satisfying the filtering criteria are consistent with these phenomena arising out of a highly improbable random mechanism.
(4i) More detail: with the door example, accurate descriptions satisfying the filter are too common to be the product of solely rare chance.
(5) There is not enough relevant data to support that NDEs caused the accurate statements.
(5i) relevance being established by the filtering criterion. — fdrake

Concerning (1) and (1i), it has not been shown, and it's purely speculation that the filters that you propose would have a negative affect on these testimonials. While it's true that these testimonials would either benefit or not from such an analysis, it has not been demonstrated one way or the other.

Concerning (2) and (2i), There have been studies that show that NDEs do give accurate descriptions.
And those that have done the studies break down what's common to NDEs, as I have done, only using percentages. You give the example of the door, but as I've answered in a previous post, the door analogy is not complex enough, it doesn't have the complexity of normal veridical experiences. Moreover, the one thing that stands out in these testimonials is the OBE, which you seem to believe in. If one believes people can have OBEs, then how can one not believe that one can have accurate descriptions of their OBEs? Moreover, how is having an OBE not evidence of consciousness extending beyond the body? Unless your contention is that the OBE is dependent upon the body, but then the question arises, how are the testimonials of an OBE that is dependent on the body, any different from the OBEs people describe when the brain and heart are not functioning? How can you believe the testimonials of the former and not the latter?

Concerning (3), this again is speculation, since a study of this sort has not been done (as far as I know). Thus, one is within his/her epistemic right to conclude that the testimonials are veridically accurate. Unless you know of a study that shows that your filters rule out the accuracy of the testimonials, then your conclusion is based on what might be the case. One can rule out any testimonial based on some possible study that might show that they are not accurate or veridical.

Concerning (4) and (4i), again this is pure speculation, there has been nothing to demonstrate this to be the case. The idea that the accuracy of the testimonials can be reduced to randomness demonstrates a lack of study of the testimonials. I point this out because I believe in an earlier post you did say that you hadn't actually studied NDEs - not just read about them, but actually studied the testimonials.

The door example, I already addressed above and in an earlier post.

Finally, (5) and (5i), again speculation.

I'm not saying it's not possible that these NDEs cannot be explained in other ways, or discounted by a careful statistical analysis. I'm saying that given my own studies, and the studies of others, there is no other explanation or study that has been done to negate these accounts.

For your argument to work you would have to show more evidence to support your conclusion.

Key questions of the second argument: what would the descriptions in NDEs have to look like to be consistent? Can we describe a given person's NDE before it happens with a sequence of non-disjunctive statements? Why would the sequence taking a disjunctive form establish the non-consistency of NDEs?

I think the difference between your Alaska example and the door example, and the differences between each and a particular NDE are illustrative here.

The door example is different from your Alaska example. The door example is a model of a simple veridical perception, the Alaska example's 'parts of the state' are generated by the observed thematics of NDEs, and so can always be made consistent descriptions of NDEs in the aggregate through iterated disjunction. This will not help us predict the content of a particular person's NDE other than saying something like 'it is likely to contain an OBE and have at least one of these thematic sensations within it'.

You have aggregated the general thematics of the testimonials and are now claiming that they are consistent based off of the idea that they obey these general thematics. The door is consistent, people see the door if the door's there. We cannot tell 'if the door is there' - some kind of representational truth- with the general thematics of NDEs, since of course particular NDEs are likely to satisfy some subset of the derived thematic properties of their aggregate! Furthermore, if we could tell this from typical NDE content descriptions, the testimonials which satisfy the filtering criteria are likely to be far more common.

Points of Commonality and Difference — fdrake

The door example is an example of a simple veridical perception, which is why it won't do when compared with more complex NDEs. NDEs are good examples of everyday reports, they are virtually identical with everyday testimonials you might get when reporting on an event. Thus, unless one has good reason to dismiss them, without speculating on what might rule them out, I contend there is enough there to warrant the conclusion my argument makes.

The door example although not as complex as general NDEs does have a correlation to NDEs in the sense that nearly 100% of those who have an NDE report not only being out of the body while the body is still functioning normally, but also being out of the body when the body is virtually shut down.

My contention is that based on the research of others, and based on my own research there is enough consistency in these testimonials, and there is enough specificity within the millions of accounts to warrant the conclusion my argument makes. The same reports are given over and over again, not just a few here and there, but many millions of accounts.

One doesn't have to do a statistical analysis to know the testimonials are consistent. Simply reading them will suffice. Knowledge here is not a matter of statistical analysis, or a matter of what science might or might not say. Anyone who takes the time and effort to read the accounts, and not dismissing them out-of-hand can see there is something extraordinary here.

I don't understand what it would mean to say it's you without continuity of memory. How can there be continuity of experience without remembering your experiences? Memory is an essential ingredient in continuity of the person. You're saying it's not you, but it's you - at the very least it's confusing, and at most it's contradictory.

Yes, culture plays an important role in how people integrate or interpret what they see. For example, Christians may interpret beings they see as an angel or as Jesus, or they may interpret darkness as hell, etc. The same is true of other cultural beliefs, much of what is interpreted is interpreted in terms of what people already believe. This is why it's important to read many accounts of what's happening, and to read what other cultures are reporting. One account that's important is Dr. Eban Alexander's account of his NDE. He was not a spiritual person prior to his NDE, and he is urged after his NDE to write down everything he could remember before reading about other NDEs.

This happens with dreams too, that is, people sometime interpret their dreams based on cultural beliefs. And it's not only dreams, but people in general interpret all kinds of things based on their cultural beliefs, so this is not something unusual. In fact, people will interpret these NDEs based on their metaphysical beliefs, or their materialistic beliefs.

No one has the answer to that question. Even if the evidence is enough to support consciousness surviving the body, we don't know what consciousness is composed of. The most you can say is that it's some kind of energy, but who knows.

Reincarnation is implied by my metaphysics. As I said, you're in this life because there's a life-experience possibility-story about you. Whatever is the reason why this life began, then, if that reason remains at the end of this life, what does that suggest?

Just briefly, I don't believe it's a matter of conscious choice. I believe it happens at a stage death-shutdown at which there's no waking-conscioujsness,and we don't remember our recently ended life, and all that remains are subconscious incinations, subconscious habitual and inherited attributes (referred to in Vedanta as "vasanas".)

For that reason, because of the degree of shutdown at the time of reincarnation, I also don't believe that we ever remember a past life.

But I'm not trying to sound contentious. ...just mentioning a different position on the matter.

Michael Ossipoff — Michael Ossipoff

What I'm trying to do is draw conclusions based on the testimonial evidence. The main thrust of this thread is the conclusion that consciousness survives bodily existence. I have drawn other conclusions based on the testimony, but the strongest conclusion one can infer from the evidence is that consciousness is not a product of our bodies. If the evidence for this is found to be weak, then all of the conclusions that I've made are incorrect, because all of the other evidence is not as nearly as strong.

I don't like using the term reincarnation because it carries a lot of religious baggage. Part of the problem with reincarnation, as I understand it, is that there is no continuity of memory, which is a big problem in terms of saying that it's you that lived in the past. If there is no continuity of memory or experiences, then one can claim to be anyone, but this seems at the very least to be contradictory. My belief based on NDEs, and what people have reported in more in depth NDEs, is that once we leave our bodies our consciousness is expanded, that is, our memories and knowledge returns. It's very similar to waking from a dream state, which is a lower state of consciousness.

Many people have reported that their memories return and that their knowledge expands. Many also report that they chose to have the experience of being human, and that many of the experiences they have in this human reality, are experiences they chose to have before coming here, not everything, but many things. People have reported seeing people getting ready to be born, i.e., waiting for a body to enter. People also report that their essence is that of a much higher being, viz., that the experience of being human is a much lower form of life than what we truly are. The point here is that our memories and knowledge remain intact, just as when you're in a dream your memories and knowledge are diminished, but when you wake up it all returns. Thus the essence of who you are remains intact, and this is an important part of making any sense of living various lives. The dream analogy in a lot of ways provides a lot of similarities to what happens when we leave this life.

There is also plenty of testimonial evidence that our identities remain intact. When we die we return to our true selves, just as we do when we wake from a dream. One of the things that supports this idea is that people claim to see friends and family who have already passed on, and they are essentially the same person. Although they seem to be in a heightened state of awareness.

There are many questions that are answered if indeed one can believe these accounts. One is that we do have free will, but only up to a point. Certain experiences may be determined, but it seems that you do have a certain amount of freedom within the experience. You make choices about how you will respond or act within the experience. In one sense there are certain things that are determined, but in another sense one does have free choice within the experience. It's like being in a river that's moving us in a certain direction, but also having the ability to move left or right within the scope of the movement of the river.

I'm speculating, but I think we are all part of a vast consciousness or mind, i.e., we are individual pieces of the mind with our own individuality. It seems that everything that's taking place is taking place in a mind or minds, and that every possible reality is part of what that mind creates. This might explain why people who have an NDE report feeling connected with everything, as if everything is alive. If what I'm saying is true, then time and distance are in a sense illusory. Moreover, if this is true then we can enter into any reality we like, this is just one reality among many. It's like the brain in a vat, but the difference is we know we are a brain in a vat, we choose what we want to experience, and we can choose to have the experiences with friends. Of course it's much more than just being a brain in a vat because we have experiences with others, and the relationships are of a much higher order than anything we can experience here.

Sorry I got carried away. :-O

The only way there could be testimonial evidence would be if there's reincarnation, and if people who have reincarnated can sometimes remember their past life. And the only way that could be verifiable would be if their previous life had been in this same world, at an earlier historical period. And they'd have to remember details that they couldn't have known if they hadn't lived that previous life.

How could that be verified? After all, it's about the past. Anyone could look up facts about the past, or otherwise research them. Doesn't it seem as if it would be impossible to determine whether someone found out those facts about the past via a past life, or by, in some way, researching it?

No, it seems to me that the only way there could be testimonial evidence of survival of death would be if someone could be reincarnated here, whose past life was in our future. Then s/he could make predictions that s/he couldn't possibly know otherwise. — Michael Ossipoff

What I would say about past lives is the following: There are many reports (thousands) that people remember, while in their NDE, that they and others have lived other lives. Of course it first has to be established that the NDE testimonials are indeed veridical. I believe they are, so I do believe based on the testimony that we can live out other lives by simply re-entering another body. I don't believe in reincarnation in this sense, I don't believe in the doctrine of reincarnation as put forth by religious types.

There are also reports by those who have taken DMT that coincide with the NDE reports of living other lives. I'm not saying that the testimonial evidence for this is as strong as the claim I'm making about consciousness surviving the body, which is only what I'm claiming in this thread. Since almost 100% of those who have an NDE report that their consciousness experience was from a third-person perspective, this is the strongest part of the argument based on testimony; and it's the one I'm inferring.

There does seem to be some evidence that after we live out this life, we can choose other lives, either in this reality or another reality.

There is also evidence that many religious interpretations of NDE accounts are heavily influenced by culture. So I put little stock in people's claims about heaven or hell, the doctrine of reincarnation, or the seeing of religious figures (Jesus, angels, etc.).

Finally, just a quick remark about suicide. When I first started studying NDEs I thought that people who committed suicide had a much more negative NDE, and some do, but after reading many thousands more I have concluded that this isn't the case. Although I'm not sure of the percentages.

Regarding NDE's along the lines of what you're basing your thoughts on...

Could it be the case that those experiences were lucid and vivid like some dreams? I mean, one's physiological sensory perception can work just fine even if the agent is unaware of the fact that it's working. This may help explain how the visions/experience matched up to what was going on in the room, as corroborated by staff and others? — creativesoul

Thanks for the remarks Creative, and yes I do remember you, and the people you mentioned. We go all the way back to Ephilosopher, which was more than 10 years ago. Sometimes I've wondered whether it's worth it to spend time in these forums, but as I look back at the time spent writing and responding to people, it has helped. Even though it can be a pain in the butt. I wish fiveredapples wouldn't get himself kicked out of these forums - I disagree with him about a lot of things, but he definitely knows how to argue. He's just too hard on people.

Can it be lucid dreaming? I've had lucid dreams, but I know the difference between a lucid dream and reality, that is, after having a lucid dream, I'm able to tell the difference. Also there are too many accounts of people without a heartbeat and without any measurable brain activity, so the question arises, how are they able to have lucid dreams under such conditions? And how would one explain how it is that people are reporting the same things, such as, seeing dead relatives and friends, having a life review, etc. I've never heard of lucid dreams matching with other people's lucid dreams. Nor have I heard of consistent reports of lucid dreaming where people report seeing themselves from a third person perspective. Finally, it's also interesting that people report that what their seeing is more real than this reality, as if this is the dream, that is, their sensory perceptions seem to be enhanced. Dreams tend to be a dumbed-down version of reality.

Thanks again Creative.

"So what we can conclude from the testimony is that people who identify as having NDEs and who self report mystical experiences will have at least one of 15 mystical themes in it. Evidence for the disjunctive event isn't evidence for the veridicality of experiencing any disjunct, rather like in the dress example. This leads me to conclude that:

"1) There are general themes within NDEs for those who self report content.
2) There is no evidence that exposure to near death generates a particular NDE.
3) From 2), there is no evidence that the perception of a given NDE type is veridical."

First, my conclusion from reading between 3500 and 4000 accounts is that people who self-report have at least three or more of the things listed on the NDE reports. I'm not sure why you would think that the reports are disjunctive events. The reports are reports of seeing many things, that is, the reports are very much like any testimonial report that one hears from a variety of witnesses of an event or events. It's not like your dress example, that is, that they're seeing either white or blue. They are describing things in chronological order (temporal order), which is very important, and they're describing a variety of things and conversations.

There is an enormous amount of evidence that NDEs generate particular sensory experiences. Again I'm basing this on a close study of the people and the testimony, and I'm basing it on corroborating reports of those who were at the scene. The first thing that almost all of these NDEers report is that of being outside their bodies (OBEs). Each report is going to be different based on what they remember and what's happening around them. Many also report hearing and seeing events just as we would see and hear any normal event. It's also important to point out that each person is having their own NDE, no two of them will be exactly alike. It's like 1000 people going to various places in Alaska and coming back and making a report of what they saw, which is why we need to have many thousands of reports to get 99% reporting W, 30% seeing X, 26% seeing Y, and 2% seeing Z. Thus if we're getting 99% reporting an OBE, that's millions of people reporting the same thing. These reports are exactly what we would expect if 1000 people went to various places in Alaska. They are exactly what we would expect if we went to the places where they claimed to have been, and verified the veracity of their reports by interviewing people who were also there. The main difference is that they're reporting something that doesn't fit a particular world view, or even scientific view. I find that this is what generates the most disdain for the argument.

There is an interesting point that needs to be made, that is, if I didn't believe the people who claimed they went to Alaska, I could make the same claims that people are making about NDEs. They aren't seeing the same things, they hallucinated, they were on drugs, they're lying, their making claims based on faulty memory, or based on what they read somewhere. It's easy to dismiss testimonial evidence, especially given that testimonial evidence is generally weak.

When we first discussed these criteria as a group, I think most of us assumed we were discussing criteria for assessing the credibility of a description of a single event based on the accounts of multiple witnesses. I made comparison to a close play at second witnessed by tens of thousands of people only one of whom was within ten feet of the play, but who could be in a worse position than the umpire team watching video footage from other angles. — Srap Tasmaner

Maybe thinking of it this way might clear some of this up. Let's think of a large building, and within the building are many people doing a variety of things. The building has many different entrance points, and of course each entrance point is going to give you a different view of the events happening within the building. Let's also assume that 1000 people entered the building at different points, and that they did it one at a time. Moreover, as each one came out of the building they reported their sensory experiences. This would give us a large sampling of the events in the building, and we would be able to evaluate the consistency of the reports. In this analogy the building would represent the OBE (out-of-body experience), and the reports would of course be what they saw from the third-person perspective. So it's not exactly like 1000 people all being at an event and reporting what they saw. It's more like a 1000 people witnessing the event one at a time, but it's still the same event reported by the witnesses.

No analogy is probably going to capture the complete picture of what's going on here, but we can come close.

You yourself just mentioned accounts of the resurrection of Jesus as a comparison, which again is a single event multiple people give testimony about. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't want to get into a discussion of the witness accounts of the resurrection, but suffice it to say that most of it is hearsay testimonials, and we only have two or three, maybe, first-hand accounts. I say this to only point out that the testimonial evidence for NDEs is much much larger, and they're all first-hand accounts.

I suppose it could be argued something like this is what we do practically all the time. None of us, as the man said, can see the beetle in another's box, but somehow we almost all come to believe we're almost all having broadly similar experiences.

In sum, the issues are:

One event with multiple witnesses vs. multiple events each with a single witness.
Establishing the existence of the event type by exemplar when the exemplars themselves are controversial or subjective. — Srap Tasmaner

It's not quite like the beetle in the box analogy put forth by Wittgenstein. In the beetle in the box analogy there is no way to confirm what you're looking at. Each of us could be looking at very different things. However, in the NDEs people are reporting things that all of us have seen, that is, if someone reports seeing their dead uncle, then we have pictures of what the dead uncle looks like, or we have others who have seen the uncle. In the beetle in the box example one might say be saying they see X, but there is no way that anyone can see X, or can even relate to what X is. They're pointing to something that has no relation to objective reality at all. People in the NDEs are reporting events that others are confirming. People are claiming to hear conversations of those around their dead body, and these conversations are confirmed by the people who were there. So there is objective verification.

It's multiple witnesses going into the same building at different times. Some of the things are the same, and yet some of the things that are reported are different, in that they happened at different times. Thus, even though I enter the building at a different time, there are still going to be things that are very similar, and still many things that are different. Furthermore, I might even interpret what I see based on my world view, which might account for the different religious interpretations of the experiences.

A large number of the reports are very similar, which is to say that they are not completely subjective. Also one can make the claim that any sensory experience is in some way subjective, but that doesn't discount the experience. The key of course is corroboration.

"My argument turns on this idea of conditional reports. I can state it more precisely now, with reference to the previous 'door seeing' example. Say there are 200 people in my door seeing study. I only expose 100 of them to the door. I then record self reports of whether they see the door or not. I think if this experiment was conducted, close to 100% of the people who saw the door would say that there was a door then, this makes the condition probability of seeing the door given being exposed to the door close to 100%. I am claiming this is good evidence because of high consistency in the reports of people who have been exposed to the door. It is irrelevant that 50% of the people in the study didn't see the door.

"So let's apply this to NDEs, do we observe very consistent regularity in the reported content of people who have experienced NDEs? No, there are many different stories. This means that exposure to an NDE doesn't (probabilistically) entail having a particular experience. Whereas exposure to the door does (probabilistically) entail seeing the door."


I agree with much of this. However, there is a similarity between your door example, and what people are reporting in their NDE. There is one feature that is common to all NDEs, which again is similar to the door example. That feature is the OBE. All of those, or nearly all of those reporting an NDE report from a third person perspective, and it's close to 100%. In fact, if one didn't report this, one would wonder whether the person had an NDE. This would mean that exposure to an NDE would probabilistically entail this specific experience (OBE). In fact this is why my conclusion isn't much broader than it is, namely, because I'm trying to give evidence of consciousness apart from body. The scope of my conclusion is a narrow one given the evidence. Only that people are reporting seeing their bodies and what's happening around them from a place outside their normal sensory experiences.

Let's start here and work our way through the argument.