There is evidence from NDE's of consciousness seeming to persist even when the brain itself has no measurable activity. — Wayfarer

I just received "Living In A Mindful Universe" by Dr. Eben Alexander. Check it out, I can't wait to read it.

There is evidence from NDE's of consciousness seeming to persist even when the brain itself has no measurable activity. — Wayfarer

How the subject of NDE could remember anything if the brain does not have any measurable activity?

That's exactly the question. And it remains unanswered. But you might also ask how does a plant remember anything when it doesn't have a brain.

How the subject of NDE could remember anything if the brain does not have any measurable activity? — bahman

Beats me, but it seems to happen.

I was given his first book, Proof of Heaven, for Christmas, 3 years ago. I must confess I found it uncomfortable reading, really, although he does strike me as an utterly sincere individual.

This is off topic so please lets put it aside. — bahman

It's not. It's an example how a thing is created without reducing it to anything or building it from anything but by changing its properties.

This is off topic so please lets put it aside.
— bahman
It's not. It's an example how a thing is created without reducing it to anything or building it from anything but by changing its properties. — BlueBanana

You cannot change the property of a irreducible thing without changing it. You cannot change a irreducible thing since this requires a destruction and a creation.

You cannot change the property of a irreducible thing without changing it. — bahman

What?

You cannot change the property of a irreducible thing without changing it.
— bahman
What? — BlueBanana

I mean a irreducible thing is defined by its property. It is not a same thing when you change its property.

Yeah, that was my point. Then an irreducible thing can be created by changing the properties of another irreducible thing.

I don't regard any of them as conclusive but they are suggestive. — Wayfarer

They are more than suggestive. Why not conclusive? what's the sufficiency criteria to be?
One single undeniable evidence should be enough to be counted. When a society stubbornly try hard to be "color blind" then roses are not red.
There is the Heap paradox that tells you the irony of trying to be absolute in everything: if you apply maths way (sort of) to it, it would lead to funny conclusions. It's up to you to go scientificofunny or unapplaudedly sane.

1) Soul is irreducible — bahman

you can think so but it's still a bold statement - nothing can prove that. There is a school of thought about reductionism in modern physics as I heard from a lecture video of Leonard Susskind. And that they think we are reaching the end of it. Basically it means everything (physical) is reducible but we are facing phenomena like monopole and electron not following that concept ...etc.
I am not saying the soul is physical (though I strongly believe so) but even in the simpler matter world, reductionism is still a question. Putting it as a postulate seems to be over the head.