Definitely. You did all that to make me feel better? Thanks.

Yw. :point:

from 2023 ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/782860

and follow-up to your conspicuously poorly reasoned, often disingenuous dogma ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/797025

If you read the thread these kinds of responses have already been addressed in one form or another. There are peer-reviewed articles that address the hallucination theory; besides you can't corroborate hallucinations, i.e., others aren't seeing what you're seeing. And whether you consider someone dead or not doesn't address the OBE. Besides I'm using the clinical definition, not your definition. Also, if you read Eban Alexander's NDE his brain was mush when he had his NDE. If anyone would understand what a hallucination is, it's surely a neuroscientist. Especially one who had the experience.

Here's a summary of the peer-reviewed article - https://neurosciencenews.com/perception-near-death-20335/

:eyes: You're still incorrigible and fatuous! Resuscitations, not resurrections, ergo not biological "death" as implied by "NDE" (as I and others have repeatedly pointed out to you Sam).

It doesn't matter, the important thing is whether there is evidence of an OBE and whether the testimony confirms people experiencing things from a third-person point of view. You're too caught up in the meaning of death, who cares? It's not the concept that matters it's the experience! I don't care how many times it's pointed out, it's a moot point as far as I'm concerned. And who in the hell is using the term resurrection? Not me.

From the cited article:

“What has enabled the scientific study of death,” he continues, “is that brain cells do not become irreversibly damaged within minutes of oxygen deprivation when the heart stops. Instead, they ‘die’ over hours of time. This is allowing scientists to objectively study the physiological and mental events that occur in relation to death”.

This is not an OBE. It is something the body experiences as it approaches death. Death is a embodied process not an on/off switch.

re: "NDE"

It doesn't matter ... the meaning of death, who cares? It's not the concept that matters it's the experience! — Sam26

:clap: :rofl:

:up: :up:

So, if true, and I believe my conclusions are correct, what follows? So, not only do we survive death as individuals, but we return to our true nature, which is not human. In other words, our identity as humans ends with the death of the body. Our identity is not in this avatar (so to speak) but is connected with our higher self. You can think of it like an MMO game in which we take on the form of a particular race in the game (the avatar), and our higher self is sitting at the computer playing the game. So, we are simply much higher beings having human experiences.

Some speculate about whether we are living in a simulation. We are in a simulation, but it's not a computer simulation. The simulation is created by consciousness, i.e., consciousness is the source of this reality, and probably all reality except base reality, which is consciousness itself. It could be that consciousness created something that then creates reality, but we don't know. Consciousness may be able to create reality by its own volition. The implications of this could be that some people that we think are conscious are not conscious, i.e., they are like NPCs in a game. You could refer to them as zombies because they are so real that they can fool us, which is where AI is headed, if not there already.

Mathematics is generated from the base mind (consciousness) and the fact that that mind uses mathematics to create explains why we see mathematical properties throughout our universe. One could argue that Plato was on the correct path.

Those who speculate about a multiverse are probably correct, viz., that other universes exist, whether it's infinite, who knows, probably not.

I believe it's also true that time (not time as we know it, i.e., it may not be linear) is part of base reality, and it's necessary to have consciousness. There is no indication that base reality is outside time. As long as you can experience change in some sense, then time is a necessary feature of the base mind.

I see no evidence that any particular religion has it correct when it comes to the afterlife. My conclusions are that there is no hell, demons, Satan, or that we need to be saved from our sins, etc. In fact, from the perspective of the other side, there isn't even evil or sin as we think of it. Why? Because nothing can harm any of us in terms of our higher self. Something that I believe solves the problem of evil is that we choose to come here knowing full well that we are going to experience some very difficult things. Some of us choose to participate in some very nasty narratives, but none of us will be judged like many religions envision it. Are there choices that are better than others? Absolutely, and love which is at the core of consciousness is what we should strive for.

Do we have free will? Yes, but it may be limited because some things seem to be planned, so we may be free at some level and other things may be determined. Think of it like a river that's pulling you in a certain direction, that direction may be inevitable, but within the confines of the stream, you can still do certain things based on choices. How this plays out is only speculation.

Many more conclusions can be gleaned from NDEs. These are just some of my inferences.

The first paragraph in your post, sir, is riddled with special pleading, appeal to incredulity & appeal to popularity, and also jejune folk psychology. C'mon, how about some philosophizing sans the fallacies & pseudo-science. — 180 Proof

:100: :up:

[C]onsciousness is the source of this reality, and probably all reality except base reality, which is consciousness itself. It could be that consciousness created something that then creates reality, but we don't know. Consciousness may be able to create reality by its own volition. — Sam26

(a) So if "consciousness ... creates reality", then what "creates" "consciousness"?

(b) And if "consciousness" is not "created", then why assume that "reality" is "created?

I too question the distinction and relationship being made between consciousness and reality.

From the cited article:

“What has enabled the scientific study of death,” he continues, “is that brain cells do not become irreversibly damaged within minutes of oxygen deprivation when the heart stops. Instead, they ‘die’ over hours of time. This is allowing scientists to objectively study the physiological and mental events that occur in relation to death”.

This is not an OBE. It is something the body experiences as it approaches death. Death is a embodied process not an on/off switch. — Fooloso4

I agree. However, what I'm saying is that much of my argument depends on what people are experiencing during their NDE/OBE. It's not dependent on some definition of death, whether that's clinical death or some other definition that claims that none of these people arereally dead because of how long, e.g., cells remain alive. Besides the descriptions of these experiences are that they are near-death experiences, not death experiences.

For me, as I've said, the real question is whether there is something to the claim that people become separated from their bodies and whether they're having a third-person experience. The evidence, as my argument concludes, is that there is enough consistency and corroboration of the reports to conclude reasonably that consciousness is not dependent on the brain. There can be significant damage to the brain (e.g. Dr. Eban Alexander's brain damage is significant) and still, people give very lucid descriptions of what's happening around their body and what's happening many miles from their body.

Many people describe their experiences as being hyper-real. One would expect a damaged brain to produce something less than what we normally experience, not more than what's experienced by a normal functioning brain.

There is no doubt that death is an embodied process, but the question is whether consciousness survives death, and survives the annihilation of the body, and my conclusion is that it does survive. This of course is based on what people are experiencing during their NDE/OBE. For example, seeing deceased friends and relatives who have been dead for many years. If they're really seeing deceased people, who have been dead for many decades, then it tells us something about what happens when the body is completely destroyed. Most people argue that these are hallucinations, but I don't think they are based on my research of hallucinations and my research of the corroborative accounts.

Most of what people tell us about their sensory experiences is trustworthy. If this wasn’t the case we would be reduced to silence. This doesn’t mean that we just accept everything people say, it just means that most of what people relay to us is reliable; and since it’s generally reliable along with our sensory experiences it’s a genuine epistemological category along with other ways of acquiring knowledge. This way of knowing is much more pervasive than even science. It doesn’t have the glamour of science or the creative power of science, at least seemingly so, but its power in our lives is undeniable.

But, of course, you're forgetting that NDEs/OBEs are not sensory experiences, which consists of the usage of sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste. All of those are caused by parts of our physical body. Dreaming, imagining, thinking, etc, aren't caused by any of our senses. These are the results of our brain processing. Consciousness aligns with the second category.

One can always point to counter-examples where large groups of people believed X and their belief or beliefs turned out to be false. However, this does nothing to the argument that testimonial evidence or our sensory experiences are generally reliable, which is the bedrock of NDE testimonials. If such examples diminished the effectiveness of the general reliability of such justifications, then it would also diminish sciences’ ability to be an effective way of justifying their beliefs or theories because science depends on testimony, sensory experience (observation), mathematics, and logic to validate many of their experiments. If you removed sensory experiences from science, it would collapse.

Wrong, it absolutely plays a pivotal role because belief(s) is the bedrock of NDE testimonials. As I already explained, sensory experiences are not evidence of NDE. Sneaking sensory experiences into belief testimonials does nothing to for the NDE argument. What it does do, is demonstrate the desperation and dishonesty of the argument.

My approach is simple, in that I’m applying Occam’s Razor to the evidence, i.e., the simplest explanation is probably the best explanation. This is how we approach most testimonial evidence in our lives. This is not to say that science isn’t helpful because it is, but that science is by its very nature materialistic, although that is slowly changing. Moreover, the tools of most scientists are not conducive to the study of consciousness because consciousness in my estimation is not materialistic, and this nonmaterialistic aspect can be understood with a simple understanding of our subjective experiences.

Actually, you're not applying Occam’s Razor because that's not what it entails. What Occam’s Razor actually entails; between competing explanations, the one with the fewest assumption(s), is usually the correct one. Simplicity is not the hallmark of Occam’s Razor. The explanation for a globe earth is more complex than the explanation for a flat earth, but the flat earth explanation has a lot more assumptions.

The truth of the matter is that for many materialists no amount of evidence would convince them because they’re so entrenched in their beliefs. This is also true of religious ideology; no amount of counterevidence would dissuade them because they’re so dogmatically entrenched in their beliefs. Nothing seems to falsify such beliefs, which is mostly the result of dogmatism. Dogmatism in many cases is the enemy of truth.

This ad hominem attack on materialists does nothing to the argument(s) and/or people opposing the NDE argument(s) since there are non-materialists who are in opposition to the NDE position.

NDEs have the same structure that any veridical experience would have, i.e., they all show slightly different variations that fit the general structure of any veridical experience. This in itself isn’t strong evidence that the experiences are veridical, but it adds to the overall picture that the experiences are veridical. In other words, it’s exactly what you would expect from veridical experiences. Whereas in a hallucination, for example, you wouldn’t find the consistency of experience, nor the corroborative aspects (objective components) that you find in NDEs/OBEs.

This is simply what I called the "I'm not saying that it's aliens, but it's aliens" fallacy.

And, hallucination experiences can absolutely be more consistent than NDE. The Old Hag and the Shadow people are two examples.

Most people would consider sufficiently reliable the testimony of 10 or 20 people on most everyday events and would consider the need for science to verify such evidence as ridiculous. Of course, this depends on what people are claiming in their testimony. If 10 or 20 people are claiming they saw Bigfoot I’d be a bit skeptical, you’re going to need a lot more evidence than that, and you’re going to need much more corroboration along with bodies, bones, or other material evidence. The point is that different claims need more or less evidence depending on how much goes against what we normally experience. In the case of OBEs, we have millions of accounts, in a variety of settings, with thousands being corroborated, and the memories are as consistent or stronger than memories of other veridical experiences. These facts suggest that ordinary everyday citizens can, based on a cursory study of the testimony, conclude that OBEs do happen. I say that it’s enough evidence for people to claim that they know OBEs happen. I would further say that if you’ve had the experience, it’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that the experience was veridical, i.e., that you know it’s veridical. Case in point Dr. Eban Alexander’s (neuroscientist) NDE given here:

Now you're special pleading, testimonies for NDE is sufficient evidence to believe that it's true but testimonies for Bigfoot isn't.

To dismiss Dr. Alexander’s testimony, which in itself is very convincing, is to ignore very powerful experiences, that at the very least should be considered and studied with an open mind.

His testimony is neither convincing nor is it a powerful experience in regards to NDE. Studying his experience using his testimony should be done with an open mind and not blindly accept it as being strong evidence for NDE. That means that when studying his case, the information should consists of not only what was said in his testimony, but also information outside of it that is relevant to what happened. So, his background as a neurosurgeon, which is not a neuroscientist, has no affect on the validity of his claims.

One important piece of information should be noted and taken into consideration when examining his testimony and claims. Dr. Alexander was wrong about him being brain dead. It's a scientific fact, that a medically induced coma, which was done to him, is not brain dead. Although small, there is still some brain activity that is present.

For me, as I've said, the real question is whether there is something to the claim that people become separated from their bodies and whether they're having a third-person experience. — Sam26

Based on the description quoted they do not separate from their bodies.

The evidence, as my argument concludes, is that there is enough consistency and corroboration of the reports to conclude reasonably that consciousness is not dependent on the brain. — Sam26

In the article cited what occurs is dependent on the brain. I suspect that your underlying assumption about the "higher self" underlies your evaluation of the evidence.

There can be significant damage to the brain (e.g. Dr. Eban Alexander's brain damage is significant) and still, people give very lucid descriptions of what's happening around their body and what's happening many miles from their body. — Sam26

As you may know, his account has been criticized. For example:here

You may see things differently, but the Esquire article is pretty damning.

I agree. However, what I'm saying is that much of my argument depends on what people are experiencing during their NDE/OBE. It's not dependent on some definition of death, whether that's clinical death or some other definition that claims that none of these people arereally dead because of how long, e.g., cells remain alive. Besides the descriptions of these experiences are that they are near-death experiences, not death experiences.

Your argument is dependent on the concept of NDE and the documented claims that people have made. A common claim that is consistently made is, the lack of brain activity present during the supposed experience. This is why the definition of death is important. This is also the reason why many NDE proponents will be vague and/or simply dodge the point entirely.

For me, as I've said, the real question is whether there is something to the claim that people become separated from their bodies and whether they're having a third-person experience. The evidence, as my argument concludes, is that there is enough consistency and corroboration of the reports to conclude reasonably that consciousness is not dependent on the brain. There can be significant damage to the brain (e.g. Dr. Eban Alexander's brain damage is significant) and still, people give very lucid descriptions of what's happening around their body and what's happening many miles from their body.

Many people describe their experiences as being hyper-real. One would expect a damaged brain to produce something less than what we normally experience, not more than what's experienced by a normal functioning brain. — Sam26

To me this is just conjecture. We don't know or have models anywhere near detailed enough about the brain to make rigorous claims about what we should and should not expect in these kinds of scenarios. These things you are saying are just based on intuition, not on detailed models. NDEs may be different to other kinds of hallucinations but that doesn't rule out a naturalistic cause. The review you posted even cited data on neural activity during death. There is not enough good evidence to rule out a naturalistic explanation.

:100:

:up: :up:

@Sam26 is dogmatic on this (spiritual / supernatural / o-dualistic) topic and, as I've found at length, his poor reasoning incorrigibly persists despite counter-arguments of the lack of public evidence, conceptual clarity & parsimony of so-called well-documented "NDE/OBE" (like "alien abduction" or "demonic possession") testimonials.

WoW! You got me. I give up. :gasp:

The following are some remarks on the logic of my argument, which is inductive as opposed to deductive. Inductive arguments are not proofs, i.e., they’re not deductive arguments. Sometimes people speak of inductive arguments as proofs, which is fine, but strictly speaking in logic only deductive arguments are proofs. So, I'm speaking of deductive arguments when I speak of logical proof. If a deductive argument is sound (valid and the premises are true) then the conclusion follows with absolute necessity. This means that the conclusion of a deductive argument follows with absolute certainty. On the other hand, the conclusion of an inductive argument doesn’t follow with absolute necessity, which is to say that the conclusion is only probabilistic. This means inductive arguments are either strong or weak based on the strength of the evidence. If the strength of the evidence is very strong, then the conclusion follows with a high degree of probability. So, if the conclusion follows with a high degree of probability, it’s highly likely to be true. Most of our knowledge is inductive, not deductive.

A common error in logic, and I see this error all over the place, is to think that any derogatory remark is an ad hominem attack (fallacy). Informal fallacies are committed when they are used as part of an argument, i.e., just because, for example, someone calls you stupid or makes some other derogatory remark, that doesn’t mean they’ve committed the ad hominem fallacy. I would think anyone who studied logic would know this, but apparently not. So, any accusation that someone has committed a fallacy must be seen in the argument itself, not just as a random statement apart from the argument. Moreover, one must demonstrate where the fallacy has occurred and not just accuse people of making a fallacy without any evidence, and pointing to a random statement that is not part of an argument is not evidence of committing a fallacy. I’m not just saying this as a note about this thread, although it applies here, I’m saying it as a general fact of the matter in many of the remarks in this forum.

The same can be said of any claim that someone is committing a fallacy, viz., is it in the actual argument? I gave the argument a few times in this thread so it's easy to check.

In the article cited what occurs is dependent on the brain. I suspect that your underlying assumption about the "higher self" underlies your evaluation of the evidence. — Fooloso4

I don't see that Dr. Parnia answers the question one way or another (depending on what you're referring to). I interpret the conclusion to be an open question that science needs to investigate further. I've followed Dr. Parnia for quite some time now and he's more careful about what he's concluding as a scientist, and that's understandable. That said, my reason for quoting that article is not that it necessarily supports all my conclusions, only that it's a peer-reviewed paper that concludes that NDEs are not consistent with hallucinations. I disagree with Dr. Parnia on some conclusions because I'm arriving at my conclusions using primarily testimonial evidence and sensory experience.

Some of my conclusions are indeed dependent on my evaluation of many thousands of testimonials. I classify NDEs into three categories. The third category is the most in-depth of all the NDEs, and it's this category that some of my conclusions come from. I haven't talked much about this in this thread.

You may see things differently, but the Esquire article is pretty damning.
a day ago — Fooloso4

I don't see it as damning at all, especially given my reason for posting it.

This is Bernard Carr's view of consciousness. I find it fascinating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aktS5zLUzbA

The evidence, as my argument concludes, is that there is enough consistency and corroboration of the reports to conclude reasonably that consciousness is not dependent on the brain. — Sam26

Non-sequitur. In 100% of cases, there is still a functional brain. An optimistic (yet debatable) interpretation of the evidence is that sensory input is not dependent on sense organs.

:up: :up:

Non-sequitur. In 100% of cases, there is still a functional brain. An optimistic (yet debatable) interpretation of the evidence is that sensory input is not dependent on sense organs. — Relativist

To say that the brain is still functional because there are, for example, cells that are still alive, or even that the brain is functioning at some level is misleading. We want to know how people have vivid experiences, including memories of what's happening around them in a state that wouldn't support these kinds of experiences given our current understanding. A case in point is Dr. Eban Alexander's experience when his brain was basically mush. Granted he's not dead and the brain is still functioning on some level, but at the level it is functioning he shouldn't be able to have these kinds of experiences or be able to recall his experiences. He shouldn't even be able to hallucinate. Many who answer this question are only speculating because we don't have the slightest idea how the brain would or could produce these experiences given its state. You're assuming that because the brain is still in some sense alive the experiences must be coming from that lower functioning state. There's no good evidence that that's the case.

I do agree that sensory experiences are not dependent on sense organs. This would have to be the case given what people are reporting in their NDEs. This is borne out in the NDEs of the blind.

Many of you are arguing that this can't happen because it's impossible or at the very least it's highly unlikely. After all, according to many, consciousness must be a brain function necessarily. Some of you are assuming what is in question. If you think that neuroscience has answered this question definitively, then you haven't been following many of the arguments. Indeed, most neuroscientists are probably materialists but the number of people that believe X isn't a good reason to believe it's true. I've pointed this out in my argument. The current evidence that the brain is the producer of consciousness and not the conduit is an open question. You may not agree with it, but that doesn't mean it's settled.

As I've said in earlier posts my argument is about the experience and what people are telling us about that experience. It isn't dependent on whether the brain is fully functional or not. If the experiences are veridical then my conclusion follows with a high degree of probability. And thus, my claim to know that consciousness survives death is sound. I'm not saying that the brain state isn't important, it obviously is, I'm claiming that the experiences themselves tell us something important about the objectivity (consistency and corroboration) of what people are experiencing while claiming to be outside their physical bodies. The testimonial evidence of any veridical experience is evidence of the experience unless you can give a good explanation that counters their experience. Based on some of these arguments you could rule out any veridical experience if it doesn't comport with your assumptions. You can see this in arguments that want to claim that consciousness is an illusion. When people resort to this kind of thinking they're desperate. We should be suspicious of any absolutist conclusion, which is why I'm saying that my conclusion is highly probable, not necessarily what follows.

The brain is simply a conduit or reducing valve for our higher self and when something interferes with the connection between the brain and our higher conscious awareness it can trigger these experiences. What triggers these experiences is not necessarily a brush with death. Some people have had these experiences without being near death.

For those of you who believe that once we're dead, that's it, we're gone, you're correct in one sense, i.e., the human self is gone once the body dies. However, as I've said we're more than the body and the essence of who we are is much more than the body. I arrived at this conclusion by examining closely the testimonial evidence of thousands of NDErs. It's just a piece of the overall picture.

I do agree that sensory experiences are not dependent on sense organs. — Sam26

You misunderstand if you think I believe that. I don't. My point is simply that IF one gives credence to those handful of NDE+OBE claims, wherein the individual purports to have seen/heard events (say) in another room, clairvoyance (perceiving events without the use of sense organs) would not be unreasonable. I'm skeptical this has truly occurred, but I know there are NDE enthusuasts who are convinced they have. They, of course, jump to the conclusion that dualism is true and the spirit lives on after death. That's non-sequitur.

You pointed to Eban Alexander, so I found and read an article he'd written. A decomposed brain is truly "mush" - it's physical structure is destroyed. Alexander's brain wasn't mush, it was sick. He was in a coma, he hadn't even died in the clinical sense you are fond of referencing. It appears that his sick brain generated some vivid mental experiences, which he interpreted as veridical heavenly experiences. I'm not impressed.

You're assuming that because the brain is still in some sense alive the experiences must be coming from that lower functioning state. There's no good evidence that that's the case. — Sam26

Argument from ignorance: neuroscience hasn't explained something, so it must be dualism. There's no evidence of anything unnatural, so it's ad hoc to propose it here. In no sense is the brain of a comatose patient dead, contrary to what you wish to believe.

Many who believe in a life after death in heaven, tend to consider these anecdotes as "proof". They made the fraudulent book "The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven" a best seller.

You can choose to believe this stuff, if you like, but if you think you have an objective argument for NDEs proving dualism, or a life after death, you are fooling yourself.

You can choose to believe this stuff, if you like, but if you think you have an objective argument for NDEs proving dualism, or a life after death, you are fooling yourself. — Relativist

:up: :up: @Sam26 is clearly fooling himself like too many other people who are terrified of their ego-mortality.

We agree! LOL.
(Y)

To say that the brain is still functional because there are, for example, cells that are still alive, or even that the brain is functioning at some level is misleading. We want to know how people have vivid experiences, including memories of what's happening around them in a state that wouldn't support these kinds of experiences given our current understanding. A case in point is Dr. Eban Alexander's experience when his brain was basically mush. Granted he's not dead and the brain is still functioning on some level, but at the level it is functioning he shouldn't be able to have these kinds of experiences or be able to recall his experiences. He shouldn't even be able to hallucinate. Many who answer this question are only speculating because we don't have the slightest idea how the brain would or could produce these experiences given its state. You're assuming that because the brain is still in some sense alive the experiences must be coming from that lower functioning state. There's no good evidence that that's the case.

You're assuming that the experiences must have occurred during that lower functioning state. There's no evidence that that's the case. However, there are evidence that experiences can occur when the brain is coming back to its normal functioning state.

He was in a coma, — Relativist

A medically induced coma. The Esquire article cited above includes factual details of his medically induced coma. Each time they woke him and he became conscious he would thrash about so the put him back under.