I have briefly looked at communication with the dead, but I haven't seen any good evidence that would compel me to think there is anything there. However, to be fair, I've only briefly studied the subject. If consciousness survives the death of the body it wouldn't surprise me that some kind of communication takes place, so I wouldn't say it's ridiculous, just not compelling at this point.

I'm not sure of your point BC. If your point is that these testimonials are of a similar sort, I would respectfully disagree. A lot of intelligent people believe a lot of things that are not substantiated including religious belief.

What I've presented is not hearsay, but is corroborated by others, and by definition it's not hearsay. Others who are able to verify the accuracy of the testimonials.

Did you watch the video I posted? I would suggest watching the video because it reflects the kind of evidence I'm talking about, even if you don't agree with it.

I can explain how consciousness doesn't need the body in a general way, but we don't have enough information to give a good explanation. I don't know if your point is to demonstrate that because we don't have a good explanation, that that somehow invalidates the testimonial evidence. If that is your point, I would simply say that there is much about quantum physics that we don't understand, but there is enough other evidence to suggest that it's true. The same is true of NDEs.

If these experiences do reflect a metaphysical reality, as I believe they do, then it seems that consciousness itself doesn't reside in the body at all, but resides and is dependent upon a separate energy source. After reflecting on this subject for years, it seems that the body is simply a receptacle for consciousness. From what others have experienced, we do keep a form after death, it's just a different form, but with higher sensory inputs. In fact, many have reported their memories returning to them, putting the existence of memories outside of the body and into a metaphysical form or body of some kind. I've come to believe that consciousness is at the bottom of reality itself. That we are part of a vast consciousness, and it is here that the true self resides with all of its memories and knowledge.

I don't think that the holographic model bolsters NDEs. My evidence is quite separate from that.

I agree.

I agree that memory and consciousness is not confined to the brain. I also agree that the holographic model is something important. In fact, some of the NDEs support the holographic model.

After studying these experiences it's interesting to compare what happens in dream states to what happens in terms of memory in these NDEs. There seem to be different levels of consciousness, and at least one level of consciousness is quite apart from the physical body.

Jeremiah you don't have a clue about what a good argument is. Just listen to yourself ramble about nothing, because you gave no good rebuttal besides philosophical jargon. I could get a ten year old to do that. Let's just agree to disagree unless you have a good rebuttal. Saying something is BS is NO argument - period.

I'm not simply giving a conviction, although I am doing that, I'm also giving good reasons, objective reasons to support a conclusion.

I'm not sure why people think that science is the only reasonable way of coming to know that something is the case. I know lots of things without pointing to the scientific method.

That one video is not necessarily enough to convince someone, but there is just too many accounts, and thus too much testimonial evidence for me to reject the testimony. This is one of the reasons I believe I know consciousness survives the body.

As I said before if that's not enough evidence (literally millions of accounts), then nothing would count as testimonial evidence. Thanks though for your responses.

It's true that experiences can occur without the actual events occurring, but this is not the case in these situations, at least a large portion of them. If you had a dream you were flying and you were able to describe actual events happening as you flew, that would be comparable to what we are describing here. We're talking about describing actual events along with other metaphysical events which makes one wonder if what their seeing is real. There are too many accounts that don't fit into what your making them out to be. Moreover, there are too many consistent metaphysical events described for it to be something other than real.

I'll sum the video up for you. Pam had an operation for an aneurysm in which the brain had to be completely drained of blood and the heart stopped. She was also being monitored for any brain activity, and there was none. Her eyes were taped shut and her hearing was blocked by ear plugs that gave off clicking sounds. She was wheeled into the operating room after she was put under, and yet she was able to describe things and conversations in that room from a third person perspective in detail. All of her testimony was verified by doctors and nurses who were there.

That's a fair question, but regardless of our inability to explain how a mind might work to explain the experience, there are too many things that speak to it being the case. We can't explain how or why we have dreams, or other experiences, but that doesn't mean the experiences aren't real.

Ya, I guess the evidence does stack the deck in my favor. That's my point. By the way give an argument. All you're doing is giving an opinion.

You watched that whole video.

Just as a point of interest, this really has nothing to do with religion (I know you're not saying it does), although people do use it to bolster religious belief. I find that if one looks at as many of these testimonials as I have (over 3500), and I've also talked with many who have had the experience, one cannot help but to conclude that not only are people wrong about their religious beliefs, but that these experiences tell us something very different about reality.

The problem with what you've said Banno is that people are seeing the same things. People are not only describing an alternate reality, but they also give accurate information about what was happening around their bodies. How does this take place in the example video I gave above when the brain has no measurable activity and has been drained of blood, and the heart has been stopped. She sees herself from a place above the operating table and is able to describe not only what happened to her in detail, but also describe the conversations. This is corroborated by doctors and nurses who were there.

To be honest if I had heard this testimony from just a few people I would agree with you, but there is just too much to ignore. Most don't deny that people are having the experience, however, they do try to explain it by appealing to other causal explanations. I have found no causal explanation that can explain the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO8UVebuA0g&t=4s

That's a good point, and it's one that has been addressed by those who have thought much about this subject. First, a brain starved of oxygen isn't going to give testimonials that relate that their experience in this state is even more vivid that normal experiences. Most people testify that this reality is dreamlike compared to their out-of-body experience. If anything they report experiences in which their sensory experiences are heightened, not dulled by a brain starved of oxygen.

Moreover, there are many thousands of experiences that are corroborated by doctors, nurses, friends, and family, that is, the reports of what they saw and heard are verified by people who were there and in a position to know.

The seventh post on the first page gives my argument. My first two posts give some background information.

There have been quite a few books written over the years on this subject, and many of these books were based on eyewitness accounts, that is, interviews with people who have had the experiences. One of the first books on the subject was written by Dr. Raymond Moody called Life after Life where he interviewed people who have had the experience. That people have had the experience most people don't doubt, mostly people try to explain the cause of the experience on hallucinations or some other causal factor. However, hallucinations tend to be person relative, that is, if people by the thousands or millions are seeing the same things that's not a hallucination. How does one explain the video example in my earlier post by saying that is a hallucination?

Address the argument in my post. The argument stands on it's own. Don't tell me it's not a good argument. I'm quite familiar with good arguments. The argument is inductive based on testimonial evidence.

It's quite true that you need extraordinary evidence. That's why there is so much evidence presented. I don't know of many stronger testimonial arguments than this.

That's a good argument Jeremiah. I have to say if someone tells me something is BS I surely conclude they are right. Man you're good.

I have given an argument. You have not given a counter-argument. The argument is clearly presented. Tell me why the testimonial evidence should not be accepted. You seem to think that scientific evidence is the only evidence needed to say that we know.

The argument said that testimonial evidence can be unreliable, but that it can also be strong based on certain criteria. The argument showed how the testimonial evidence in this argument is strong. So based on the strength of that criteria one could reasonably conclude that consciousness does survive bodily death.

And yes, that is the way testimonial evidence works. So if hundreds and thousands of people are making consistent claims about their experiences you require more evidence? You require more because no experience that seems to run counter to your beliefs would satisfy you.

I have found no credible argument against these experiences. I've read the counter-arguments, namely, that they are hallucinations, illusions, drugs, endorphins, residual brain activity, but none of these explanations explain NDEs.

What is real? Unfortunately one cannot give you an answer that will probably satisfy you. You have to go through the process of working it out for yourself. There is no definition of real that will encapsulate every possible use of this word. The meaning of this word is in how it's used within a language. I'm not saying you don't have private experiences, but that the use of the word real is something that takes place in a community - a community of language users. It's not you who decides how the word is used, so in that sense it's not you who decides what's real.

One can correctly say that one's experiences are real, but there are many uses of the word real, and because it seems so vague, it may seem like one doesn't have a grasp of reality. Maybe you're just trying to be precise where there is no precision. Many words are like this, that's just the way language is.

It's interesting to me that those who don't believe that there is evidence that consciousness, for example, can survive the body, will not allow any experience count as evidence. Even if there are literally millions of consistent reports of people having experienced out-of-body experiences that can be objectively verified. I'm not talking about laboratory verification, but sensory experiences verified through testimonial evidence. I find that most of the arguments against this testimony to be fallacious (self-sealing). Why? Because even if the evidence is largely consistent, taken from a wide variety of subjects, can be objectively verified, it's still rejected out-of-hand. Unless one rejects testimonial evidence as a valid way of knowing, how can one reject the testimonial evidence as evidence for dualism? There is plenty of evidence of the dualistic nature of humans. People reject the evidence simply because it doesn't fit their narrative. I'm not saying they do it consciously, but it doesn't fit their world view.

It was suggested in one of the posts that science is somehow the arbiter in this dispute, i.e., the implication seems to be that if science can't know it, then it can't be known. Science is only one way of having knowledge. Surely I know I'm sitting at my desk without having science intervene and tell me that it's a piece of knowledge. Moreover, I can know through linguistic training, testimony, etc., so there are a variety of ways of having knowledge. I don't understand why some seem to limit knowledge in this way. I'm more of a Wittgensteinian when it comes to knowledge, i.e., that there are a variety of uses of the word, and that we justify what we believe in a variety of ways.

I actually came to this view by studying near death experiences. That we are all part of a central or core mind or intellect, and that reality is created by that mind. My understanding is that there are an unlimited amount of realities that this mind can create.

Yes, we do, but it doesn't follow from that that we're right. You're welcome to just commit to this acceptance and carry on with your life, but that hardly counts as a good philosophical defence of the position against alternatives (anti-realism, idealism, phenomenalism, etc.). — Michael

On the one hand you seem to agree that our perceptions are grounded without need for a justification, but then you add that "...it doesn't follow that we're right." It sounds contradictory. To show that one is right,is to have some kind of justification, otherwise what would being right in this context mean?

Basic beliefs (bedrock beliefs or hinge-propositions) are not the kind of beliefs that need any justification, i.e., it's not a matter of being right. They form the substrata of all of our epistemic justifications, i.e., without them we couldn't talk about being right or wrong. In a sense bedrock beliefs are like the rules of chess, i.e., without them one couldn't play the game. Reality is just there as a backdrop, similar to the rules of chess. Moreover, there is a causal link between our sensory perceptions and these very basic beliefs. A causal link between the world and our sensory perceptions that form bedrock beliefs. These are beliefs that are formed prior to language, and prior to our ability to talk about them in epistemic ways. They form the backdrop of all linguistic beliefs. You were right when you said that they are just beliefs, but they are very different from other kinds of beliefs, they are states-of-mind that are foundational to everything that follows from linguistic beliefs (knowledge, truth, etc). This is why they are outside the scope of what these questions of justification or being right are about.

These theories of reality that philosophers like to play with are worthless. There is no theory of reality that will capture the essence of what reality is, no more than one can capture the essence of what a game is in a definition. In a sense one would have to get outside of reality, or outside of ourselves to understand some of these questions, or to make sense of the questions.

Propositions about reality are understood by understanding how these words are used, but it would be a misunderstanding to assume that use always drives meaning. Philosophers are notorious for using words in ways that violate normal usage.

It only begs-the-question if you believe that propositions like "I live on the earth" or "I am a person," need some kind of justification. What I believe to be the case, is that certain statements are bedrock to the whole of our epistemic system, and this is what Descartes didn't understand, viz., that justification comes to an end. At some point it just doesn't make sense to epistemically doubt that there is no difference between, for example, dreams and waking states. The argument seems to grant that there is a difference on the one hand, but then they take it away on the other hand to shore up the argument. There is something very fundamental about our perceptions that's generally grounded for us, i.e., we generally accept them as veridical without the need for justification.

The world lacks love. Everything good flows from love.

There is a lot of truth in what you're saying. I see so much that disgusts me when I look at religion. However, no one is immune from group think, it's all over the place, and if you think being smart or intelligent makes you immune, think again.

I was involved with the Christian community for more than 40 years, and it's only since I've freed myself from that kind of thinking that I'm able to look at it from an outside position. It's really a feeling of freedom and release, it's like my thinking was locked into a prison.

I still think there is something more to us than just what we physically sense, but I try to base what I believe on evidence not the subjective.

Part of the problem is where you think the self is located. Obviously if you belief that the self is only connected with the body, then any idea of having past lives would be rejected, However, if the self can exist apart from the body, i.e., that consciousness survives the body, then there is a way to explain how someone could have existed as Washington and Lincoln. For example, you could think of it as simply occupying one body, dying, then entering into another body. Continuity of memories and experiences are only maintained in the primary self. Again the dream analogy works best, although not perfect, in that you are still you in a dream state, but you're not fully connected with all of your memories or experiences until you wake up. We may experience something similar when we die, that is, all our memories return, including who we were in past lives, thereby keeping the continuity of the self.

Of course a high number of testimonials isn't necessarily evidence. The criteria for good testimonial evidence as given in my post is something to be looked at together, i.e., all of the criteria work together not separately. So high numbers work together with the other criteria.

To be honest, what Jesus said really doesn't concern me in terms of this argument.

That's no argument, you're just assuming their nuts because it doesn't fit a particular world view. Besides there is just too much corroborating objective evidence that belies what you're suggesting. Too many accounts of doctor, nurses, family, and friends who have given accounts confirming that what people claim to have seen is exactly what they did see.

One can always explain away any sensory experience one disagrees with by coming up with something that sounds plausible or possible.

What makes any sensory experience accepted by others? What makes it accepted by others is that it fits within a certain framework of objective experience, which bring me back to how testimonial evidence gets its strength. I don't think it's correct to assume that a particular experience is not real or not objective because it doesn't fit a particular world view. It's the evidence that should be considered, and nothing else.

How does a massive flood of endorphins explain this NDE?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXE34msT0lE

I would say that there is a causal connection between concepts and minds, just as there is a causal connection between a creation of art and the mind. You definitely cannot have one without the other, but that doesn't mean that concepts exist in minds, no more than a painting exists in a mind before it's created.

Concepts come to life in language, and language is made up of rules that happen between and amongst people. For me it's a confusion to think that concepts exist in minds, concepts only have existence in terms of how we use words in statements; and this happens in the practice of following the rules of language. So concepts get their life in terms of how we act, but this is quite separate from the idea that concepts exist in a mind.

To illustrate this point, let's say that I create a concept that doesn't exist, call it samigga, what would it mean to say that the concept exists in my mind? Is there some thing in your mind that has existence apart from how the concept is used? Note though, that if a new word is created, it gets its life how? It gets its life, thus its existence, as we use it with others, and as it's gradually accepted by others into a language.

Most of what you're saying is pure speculation about what might happen. I've given a ton of evidence about what is happening, namely, what people are experiencing.

I understand your point, and it's one that should be considered. After studying these experiences for over ten years I've come to a different conclusion. I don't want to get into a linguistic analysis of what's death, so let's just stipulate it's exactly what people say it is, namely, near death experience, not a death experience.

First, there are just too many reports of people seeing things from a perspective that is outside their body; and many of these reports are from a perspective that is nowhere near their body, that is, seeing and hearing things that are many miles away from their bodies.

Second, there are instances where there is no measurable brain activity, and even if you want to claim that there may be residual traces of neuro activity, that wouldn't explain how it is that people are claiming that what they're seeing and hearing is more vivid than the reality they are use to. It would seem to follow that if there are only traces of neuro activity, instead of full blown neuro activity, we could conclude reasonably that whatever they're experiencing would be less vivid and more dreamlike than normal reality. How does one explain what they are experiencing in terms of a brain that has no measurable activity? Moreover, when you say "leave traces" what does that mean? Because traces of neuro activity is certainly far from normal neuro activity, and these reports make claims that point to heightened sensory awareness, not dumbed-down sensory experiences.

I have found no neuroscientific explanation that would explain these experiences. In fact, Dr. Eban Alexander who is a neurosurgeon couldn't explain his NDE in terms of what he understood about the brain.