I don't think so.

Are NDEs scientifically explainable phenomenon? If they are, then why are we discussing an interesting, yet philosophically irrelevant, medical phenomenon in a philosophy forum? — Hanover

I don't think that scientifically explainable phenomena are philosophically irrelevant. There's a reason we have a category for "Interesting Stuff" that includes social sciences. It's partly because issues in these areas can be discussed philosophically.

I don't think so. — jamalrob

It appears you would want a NDE thread to represent your own views, and you are the forum owner, and so have the final word. I'm cool with that, no problem.

But intellectually, why does one view of such an unknown realm automatically have more value than another? If that is what you're saying.

I don't know what you're talking about. First, I was clear that my stated preferences were my preferences, and second, I don't think it's an unfair imposition to expect people to engage with research rather than speculate in ignorance like Jimmy down the pub.

This could reasonably be declared off topic, but personally I'm more interested in reports from DMT experiences, as these would seem to be reproducible, at least generally speaking to some degree.

Best I can tell (not used DMT myself) the experiences revolve around ego death more than physical death, but then ego death is why we're worried about physical death.

PS: If all drug inspired experiences are to be discredited, then posted submitted while high on caffeine should be included.

First, I was clear that my stated preferences were my preferences — jamalrob

Right, that's where I got the impression I did.

I don't think it's an unfair imposition to expect people to engage with research rather than speculate in ignorance like Jimmy down the pub. — jamalrob

Well, ok, but isn't that your bias? Research=good, experience=meritless?

If that is your bias, I'm not arguing against it so much as wondering why it couldn't be part of such a conversation, instead of the boundaries of such a conversation.

Replying to you as a poster what you were proposing is far more interesting. I might try something new starting from the mind and body problem and looking more broadly to other fields because I do believe that philosophy needs to engage with other disciplines, rather than closing in upon itself

I am not saying that what I write will be wonderful but I will have a go and I don't think it would need a whole blog or a whole life time's worth, although it might be a worthwhile life spent. But I will wait and try and reframe the question differently because I don't want to block the creative pathway of the original inventor of the post. In the meantime others, including yourself, can dive in and may come up with some brilliant insights and analysis.

This current post may have all sorts of exciting twists and turns. And in wishing to make a contribution rather than a mere criticism of its early beginnings I would mainly just ask whether the near death journeys should be taken at face value for what they appear to represent or as something else?

Well, ok, but isn't that your bias? — Hippyhead

I'm not worried about that. If it's bias, I think it's one that's shared by philosophers and intellectuals in general. Of course, this can be questioned; or as you put it, can "be part of such a conversation, instead of the boundaries of such a conversation." But that's a conversation about the relative roles of personal experience versus familiarity with the literature, rather than about NDEs as such. Of course, nothing is stopping you from stunning people into awed silence with your insights in any thread you want. :cool:

I would mainly just ask whether the near death journeys should be taken at face value for what they appear to represent or as something else? — Jack Cummins

We can believe the testimony, but suspend judgement on the interpretation, I would think.

I'm not worried about that. If it's bias, I think it's one that's shared by philosophers and intellectuals in general. — jamalrob

Yes, those who have, generally speaking, no experience with the phenomena in question. Which is not to say they are therefore wrong in their views. I'd like to hear from them. Just not only them.

But that's a conversation about the relative roles of personal experience versus familiarity with the literature, rather than about NDEs as such. — jamalrob

It's relevant in this thread, which is not really about NDEs, but forum policy. Again, I'm not all wound up about this, just desperately making a pathetic attempt to stun someone, anyone, in to silence. Like that could ever happen. :-)

:gasp: :zip:

but suspend judgement on the interpretation — jamalrob

I'm questioning the degree to which judgment has been suspended.

Are you stunned yet? :-)

NDE. Near death experience, yes? Is a life experience and not a death experience. That's why "near" and "experience." Or in sum, the thing that isn't. So if there's going to be a discussion, how about it starts with some clarity and rigor. And if not, then delete, delete, delete. Or the lounge, with apologies to the lounge.

I am personally inclined to suspend judgement based on the whole issue that the altered states of consciousness may be derived from chemical states including lack of oxygen. I have never died but have had out of body states arising from stress, or if I have been severely lacking in sleep or food.

Apart from chemical imbalances I think that the layers of consciousness may also be involved. I am interested in the mythic depths of consciousness including the writings of Stranislav Grof about life in the womb, and more importantly, the ideas on dream imagery and archetypes arising from Carl Jung's ideas.

Of course the near encounter with death is a truly archetypal event.

That could be interesting JC.

Is a life experience and not a death experience — tim wood

Here we get in to definitions and word games, but my understanding is that these experiences are classified as death by the medical community. Emergency room doctors are highly educated specialists and deal with life and death on a regular basis. So while I wouldn't claim they should automatically have the final word on how to define NDE, if we are to concern ourselves with experts, that's who they are.

NDERF is the largest Near-Death Experience (NDE) website in the world — nderf.org

I think these folks are the site owners:

Jeffrey Long is a medical doctor specializing in the practice of radiation oncology, using radiation to treat cancer in Houma, Louisiana. As a scientist, Jeff founded NDERF in 1998. He wanted to know if NDEs were real by directly asking the NDErs themselves. The answer is a resounding YES! As a result of his research, he is the author of the New York Times Best Seller, "Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences." As a leading NDE researcher and a medical doctor, Jeff has appeared on national media including O'Rielly Factor, NBC today, ABC with Peter Jennings, the Dr. Oz Show, the History Channel, the Learning Channel, and National Geographic. He has also appeared on Fox News Houston and at the New York Academy of Sciences.

Jody Long is an attorney, licensed in Washington, New Mexico, Louisiana, and the Navajo Nation. She is webmaster for the Near Death Experience Research Foundation (NDERF) for the past 13 years and provides support and a forum for NDErs and those who want to know about the afterlife. She has several decades of experience researching paranormal and related phenomena. She is also webmaster for After Death Communication Research Foundation (ADCRF) www.adcrf.org and the other consciousness experience website which is everything that is not an NDE or ADC (OBERF) www.oberf.org . Jody helped with "Evidence of the Afterlife," the New York Times best selling NDE book. She has written "God’s Fingerprints: Impressions of Near Death Experiences," "From Soul to Soulmate: Bridges from Near Death Experience Wisdom" which will be the first book of it's genre published in mainland China before the end of 2016. The newest book, "Living Like an Immortal" will be coming out the first part of 2017.

Are ‘Near-Death Experiences’ Real?

By John Martin Fischer - a professor of philosophy.

:up:

Here we get in to definitions and word games, — Hippyhead

if they're dead, then what we have is resurrection. If they're not dead, then they're alive. What do you imagine "dead" means?

And I shall try to remember that for you, clarity is a "word game."

Your references are useful and I may try to read them if I can at some point.

I think the subject has probably a very extensive body of literature from many perspectives and certainly while I am writing on my phone I feel very limited but I certainly see my own remarks as mere reflections based on previous reading.

One remarkable by John R Searle in his book The Mystery of Consciousness is that 'the simulation of mental states is no more a mental state than the simulation of an explosion is an explosion is in itself an explosion.' I think that this point is pertinent because there is a danger of the near death experiences being viewed in a literal way. Of course I am not wishing to undermine the value of the experiences for individuals. They often have seem of profound and transformative value for the individuals but based on my reading of Jung I would see them as symbolic primarily.


Edward F Bruner in his discussion of the creative persona has pointed to the creation of experience of light in connection with interaction between the left and brain hemispheres. I think the reason why this is importance of possible neurology involved in possible brain processes.

While having a limited knowledge of neuroscience the reason for pointing to this is that it does seem central to the experience of near death survivors is light, although some accounts include dead relatives which suggests that the experiences is more than a creation of light imagery.

This leads back to the possibility of placing the experiences in the level of deep dream states at least. Of course, as mediators are aware breath has a profound impact upon higher states of consciousness. Perhaps this involves the trigger of alpha and theta states of consciousness.

One thing I will also say, before closing for now, is that it is interesting that the tunnel of light features in those who return from death, suggesting possible heavenly journeys but not of any descending to hellish regions. But of course, the history of visionaries, including William Blake, and many others, especially those diagnosed as schizophrenic, have known infernal as well as heavenly regions, which could lead to the need to frame the near death experiences within the context of the larger picture of visionary and other altered states of consciousness.

Yes, technically, playing Russian roulette is an NDE, or holding your breath for a couple of minutes.

I am a bit disappointed that you have not engaged in any discussion about the philosophy of near death experiences when it appeared that you wished to do so.

All you appeared to say was that you miss someone called Sam who was special and wrote on the topic. Unfortunately, I was not on the forum when he was writing and it is likely that other new forum members have not come into contact with his ideas.

I do believe that there are probably many new members who could give worthwhile ideas but you have not even given a starting point. I offered a bare sketch of some basic ideas before just before the exchange between Hippyhead and Tim Wood. I am sorry if this does not in anyway live up to the standard you would expect but I do think you need to be a bit more forthcoming.

I want to help your thread stay top of the charts, even though I think its title may not even tempt some to open it at all. I just would like to know a bit more about your thoughts or even why you think that it is the subject matter of philosophy. I think that it is but I am not sure that everyone does, from a couple of responses so far.

After deliberating on this a bit more I think I don't have the capacity to say much on the issue, as I have never had a near death experience.

Surely this is the only mark to which people have any authority on the issue (and I include forum bigwigs such as @jamalrob and @Hanover in this).

At least you are honest about it. I have not died but probably take an interest because I have had out of body experiences and probably my interest began from that really. I will wait and see if people add more to the thread in the next few days and may create one on out of body experiences next week.

So, we may again on another thread, and I do like the picture and your pen name. For the time being I am not taking a pen name, because life is too surreal at the moment anyway, but if I do this at any point I might become Dr Dream.

I have never had a near death experience.

Surely this is the only mark to which people have any authority on the issue — The Opposite

Do you mean that nobody can have expertise in or knowledge of NDEs unless they have had one? That's a bit severe. Imagine applying that standard to psychology and psychiatry in general. It would mean that only schizophrenics could speak with authority on schizophrenia. But in fact, it's often precisely those who are not relying on their personal experience who contribute to our knowledge.

if they're dead, then what we have is resurrection. — tim wood

Perhaps those doctors, who bring them back, like to think highly of themselves.

It would mean that only schizophrenics could speak with authority on schizophrenia. — jamalrob

Indeed.

it's often precisely those who are not relying on their personal experience who contribute to our knowledge. — jamalrob

Yes, but knowledge only applies to the external/outward world.

I am not sure that knowledge applies to the external world alone because there is so much which can be gained about inner reality within the work of great writers, including Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung.

I think that both people who have subjective experiences and those who stand back objectively have important contributions. In the case of schizophrenia, both the ideas of the psychiatrist and the patients offer valid insights. The dialogue between the two perspectives can be extremely interesting.

In the case of the near death experiences some of those who have them are too immersed to see them at face value. Others can go to the other extreme and dismiss them as psychotic fantasies and the task of the philosopher is to juggle these views and possibly come to a different conclusion altogether.

As you have enough interest to have created the post perhaps all you need to is to think ask is whether you believe that the experiences are real or not?

Do you mean that nobody can have expertise in or knowledge of NDEs unless they have had one? That's a bit severe. — jamalrob

Agreed. It would seem to be the polar opposite of the severity you seem to be proposing (if I understand it) that we should focus on those examining the phenomena from the outside while largely dismissing those reporting from within the experience.

This may be an overstatement of your perspective, corrections welcomed.