It's an inductive argument, I don't know with absolute certainty, but I know with a high degree of confidence that we survive.

Janus, you’re basically saying that no matter what evidence is presented, you’ll still hold to “there could be some other explanation.” That’s not an evidence-based position; that’s a self-sealing stance. If the standard is “I must personally experience it,” then you’ve set a bar that rules out most of what you already believe about history, science, and even your own life. You didn’t personally witness the Big Bang, World War II, or the formation of Mount Everest, but you accept those as realities because the convergence of evidence is strong.

As for “misremembering, collusion, or fabrication”—those are always possible, but possible in the same way they’re possible in eyewitness testimony for any event. That’s why corroborated NDE cases matter. When you have medical staff verifying details the patient couldn’t have known—down to objects, conversations, or actions outside their line of sight—you can’t just wave that away as “maybe collusion.” Could it happen? Sure. But when it happens again and again across unrelated people, cultures, and settings, the possibility of deception stops being a serious explanation and starts looking like an escape hatch.

Youu say survival is “implausible given what is known about the brain.” But what if what we “know” is simply incomplete? Medical history is full of once-implausible realities, germ theory, organ transplants, and quantum mechanics. Implausibility isn’t an argument, it’s just a measure of how far a claim sits outside our current framework. And the whole point of evidence is that, sometimes, it forces us to stretch that framework.

I also hear you say you’re “not all that interested” because you can’t change whatever the truth is. But this isn’t just metaphysical curiosity, it’s about what kind of beings we are, what we mean by “life” and “death,” and how we shape ethics, medicine, and meaning in light of that. You can do something about it: you can hold your beliefs responsibly, in proportion to the evidence, and without letting disinterest be a substitute for doubt.

And finally, the line about never being proven wrong if there’s nothing after death? That’s not an advantage, it’s an evasion. The real question is: are you willing to examine the evidence without protecting your conclusions in advance? If the answer is no, then the conversation isn’t really about evidence, it’s about comfort.

My book deals with this in a way no other book has. I look at it from an epistemological point of view.

You didn’t personally witness the Big Bang, World War II, or the formation of Mount Everest, but you accept those as realities because the convergence of evidence is strong. — Sam26

I accept the Big Bang provisionally as the most plausible current theory. I can see absolutely no reaosn to doubt that WW2 happened. I accept plate tectonic theory as the most likely explanation for the formation of Everest that we now have.

As for “misremembering, collusion, or fabrication”—those are always possible, but possible in the same way they’re possible in eyewitness testimony for any event. — Sam26

That's true of course, but I think I have less reason to doubt eyewitness accounts of ordinary events than I do of extraordinary ones. And even then I'm fundamentally skeptical of testimony regarding legal claims, having the view of the reliability of human memory and testimony, not to mention honesty, that I do.

(On account of this I would never want to be on a jury, because the thought of wrongfully convicting someone horrifies me. Of course I understand that it is necessary that there be juries, but I'll happily leave the task to those who are more comfortable with passing judgement).

I also hear you say you’re “not all that interested” because you can’t change whatever the truth is. But this isn’t just metaphysical curiosity, it’s about what kind of beings we are, what we mean by “life” and “death,” and how we shape ethics, medicine, and meaning in light of that. — Sam26

The shaping of ethics and medicine should be done only with regard to this life in my view, because I believe this life is all we can know with certainty. Similarly, that's why I think religion, in the sense of otherworldly concerns, should be kept out of politics. As to "meaning", wherever we are not forced to accept meanings imposed by others, we all develop our own meanings out of life experience, and I think that is as it should be.

And finally, the line about never being proven wrong if there’s nothing after death? That’s not an advantage, it’s an evasion. The real question is: are you willing to examine the evidence without protecting your conclusions in advance? If the answer is no, then the conversation isn’t really about evidence, it’s about comfort. — Sam26

If it's an evasion it is not my evasion. I can be proven wrong, because I assume there is no life after death. If there is life after death I will be proven wrong. I will never be convinced by the kind of testimonial evidence you are convinced by. But that's OK―there is no strict measure of plausibility, and we all believe what we personally find most plausible. I just don't think it's that important―I think what is important is living this life the best way we can, which for myself involves accepting the reality of our ignorance in those matters where I believe reliable knowledge is impossible.

So, don't get me wrong―I am not for a minute saying you should not believe in NDEs, I'm just saying that I personally don't find the evidence convincing.

If it's an evasion it is not my evasion. I can be proven wrong, because I assume there is no life after death. If there is life after death I will be proven wrong. I will never be convinced by the kind of testimonial evidence you are convinced by. But that's OK―there is no strict measure of plausibility, and we all believe what we personally find most plausible. I just don't think it's that important―I think what is important is living this life the best way we can, which in my view involves accepting the reality of our ignorance in those matters where reliable knowledge is impossible. — Janus

You say you “can be proven wrong” because if there’s life after death, you’ll find out. But that’s not the same as being epistemically open to being proven wrong now, while we’re talking about the evidence. Waiting for personal post-mortem confirmation is a way of dodging every opportunity to examine the data in the here and now. That’s the kind of evasion I was pointing to, not whether the afterlife itself could eventually confront you.

You also say you will “never be convinced” by the kind of testimonial evidence I’m citing. That’s not a neutral statement—that’s a declaration that no amount of corroborated, independently verified, cross-cultural, repeatedly observed testimony will ever count for you. That’s not just “different plausibility thresholds.” That’s closing the door on an entire category of evidence before weighing it. If you really think “reliable knowledge is impossible” here, then you’ve made your conclusion first and your epistemology second.

And I get that you think the bigger point is “living this life the best way we can.” I’m with you on that as a moral priority. But this isn’t just idle metaphysics; it matters for how we understand identity, consciousness, ethics, medicine, and even grief. If the evidence suggests consciousness isn’t fully extinguished at death, that’s not a trivial footnote, it’s a seismic fact about what it means to be human. Saying “it’s not important” sounds less like humility and more like a way of keeping the question at arm’s length so it doesn’t disturb the framework you’ve already settled into.

I’m not asking you to agree with me—I’m asking you to acknowledge that the evidence exists and that dismissing it wholesale is a choice, not a necessity. Choosing to live with “the reality of our ignorance” should mean keeping the file open, not declaring the case unanswerable before you’ve read it.

Anyway, thanks for your responses, Janus.

But that’s not the same as being epistemically open to being proven wrong now, while we’re talking about the evidence. — Sam26

The point was just that there is no strict measure of what evidence should be convincing for everyone, other than direct observation ( and even there we have those who think there is room for skepticism).

The other thing is that we all have limited time and so must prioritize what seems most important to us individually to investigate, if we wish to investigate anything at all. So, I acknowledge that it is possible that if I had researched the NDE phenomena as thoroughly and for as long as you apparently have, then I might be convinced. The problem is it is not important enough for me to motivate doing that because I figure I'll either find out one day when I die (if there is life after death, otherwise not) or if I have my own NDE I might be convinced by that.

Saying “it’s not important” sounds less like humility and more like a way of keeping the question at arm’s length so it doesn’t disturb the framework you’ve already settled into. — Sam26

I'm only saying it's not important to me personally―or at least not important enough to motivate me to investigate it. I don't think there is any fact of the matter as to whether it is important tout court.

I’m not asking you to agree with me—I’m asking you to acknowledge that the evidence exists and that dismissing it wholesale is a choice, not a necessity. Choosing to live with “the reality of our ignorance” should mean keeping the file open, not declaring the case unanswerable before you’ve read it. — Sam26

I do acknowledge that, so I'm not, as I said, saying no one should be convinced by the evidence.

:up:

I dunno, brains seem like a complex, expensive bit of machinery, biologically speaking. Seems weurd that we would go through all the trouble to evolve complicated regions for emotion, processing space, the body, vision, hearing... only to not even need them during these NDEs. Think a similar kinds of bizarreness like this also occurs when thinking about religions, souls, the afterlife. The brain seems superfluous, like why do we need a brain to cognize and emote about God when we would be expected to have some kind of relationship with God in the afterlife.

You seem to be arguing that because the brain is complex, consciousness must be a function of the brain. It could just mean that complexity is needed to house consciousness. You're assuming that because the brain is complex, consciousness must be produced by it. That’s a non sequitur. Complexity doesn’t automatically tell us about the origin of a function, only that the system performs it in some way. A complex receiver doesn’t generate the signal it receives; it processes and interacts with it.

It could just mean that complexity is needed to house consciousness. — Sam26

Well its clearly not if dead people can have complex experiences without a functioning brain.

The brain seems superfluous, like why do we need a brain to cognize and emote about God when we would be expected to have some kind of relationship with God in the afterlife.

Because the brain anchors our consciousness in this physical world. If this weren’t happening our consciousness would be somewhere else entirely and even if it were somehow here, but disembodied. It would have no awareness of the physical stuff that the brain enables us to access.

It would have no awareness of the physical stuff that the brain enables us to access. — Punshhh

Then how do dead people have knowledge of physical events suring NDEs when their brain is shut off?

I'm not sure, but I was thinking of adding not only a chapter that answers the critics, but a chapter that includes a fictional courtroom debate. It would look like the following:

Prosecution Neuroscientist – Dr. Karen Miles (Opening Statement)

“Members of the jury, my task is not to debate philosophy, but to explain what the brain can do — especially under conditions of trauma, oxygen loss, and anesthesia.

The Defense wants you to think of the brain as a light switch, either fully on or fully off. But in reality, brain function is more like a city during a blackout: the main grid can go down while small neighborhoods still flicker with power. The instruments we use to monitor brain activity, like EEGs, are powerful, but they aren't omniscient. A flatline doesn't guarantee the total absence of all neural activity, especially in deeper structures that are harder to measure.

We also know that certain physiological states can produce vivid, structured experiences. Oxygen deprivation can trigger tunnel vision and bright lights. Temporal lobe discharges can evoke life reviews, intense emotions, and a sense of leaving one’s body. Anesthetic awareness, rare but documented, can allow a patient to perceive fragments of their surroundings while appearing fully unconscious.

So when an NDEr reports seeing an instrument or hearing a phrase, we must consider: could it have been perceived through residual sensory channels or reconstructed afterward from memory fragments? Could the emotional weight of the event have amplified recall or altered perception?

I'm not here to call anyone a liar. But as a neuroscientist, I know the brain is capable of creating convincing realities under extraordinary stress. Testimony, no matter how sincere, must be weighed against what we know of these mechanisms before we conclude it points to a mind separate from the brain.”

Defense Neuroscientist – Dr. Elena Marquez (Opening Statement)

“Ladies and gentlemen, let’s talk about data, not speculation.

The Prosecution has just outlined mechanisms that can produce certain NDE-like features. And yes, those mechanisms exist. But when we look closely at the strongest cases, those explanations fall apart.

Take the ‘flicker of power’ analogy. In multiple well-documented instances, patients have shown no measurable brainstem or cortical activity, no reflexes, no response to stimuli, no brainstem auditory evoked potentials, yet later gave accounts containing accurate, verifiable details from the operating room. In some cases, those accounts cover events that occurred during periods when the heart was stopped and the brain was cooled to the point of electrical silence.

Residual hearing? Then explain how blind patients describe visual scenes accurately, details confirmed by medical staff. Oxygen deprivation? That tends to produce confusion, not coherent narratives with verifiable elements. Anesthetic awareness? That would require an intact working memory to store those perceptions, yet these events occur during periods when the brain’s memory circuits are demonstrably offline.

Here is the epistemological point: when testimony is corroborated by independent physical evidence, surgical records, multiple staff reports, and timestamps, it meets the same standard of reliability used in criminal trials and medical diagnostics. And when the best neuroscientific models cannot account for that corroboration, we are not dealing with mere anecdotes. We are dealing with anomalies that demand an open-minded explanation.

Science advances when it takes anomalous data seriously. To ignore these cases, or to explain them away with mechanisms that don’t fit the facts, is not science; it’s preservation of a worldview at the expense of the evidence.”

(This would include not only neuroscientists on both sides, but philosophers on both sides. What do you think?)

The brain might be a kind of interface or transceiver, not the sole producer of consciousness. — Sam26

It seems to me that a serious problem for such a notion is that our conscious minds have no conscious knowledge of how to work such an interface.

Do you consciously consider which motor neurons in your brain to activate and in in what sequence, in order to type a response to this post? I'm confident that the answer is, "No.", just as you aren't aware of which sensory neurons were stimulated in what sequence in the process of reading this post.

There is a lot of automated stuff going on subconsciously, underlying our conscious interactions with the world. Where do you locate these automated processes? In the physical brain, or in a nonphysical consciousness which is treating tne brain as a transciever?

Why think consciousness can occur without such subconscious automation?

I don't think the transciever hypothesis stands up to any serious scrutiny.

The argument doesn't stand or fall on that analogy, but it does seem to fit the testimonial evidence.

By definition, hallucinations are sensory perceptions that occur without external stimulus — Sam26

Incorrect. Hallucinations can also involve external stimulus.

"Hallucinations are false perceptions of sensory experiences. Some hallucinations are normal, such as those caused by falling asleep or waking up. But others may be a sign of a more serious condition like schizophrenia or dementia."
-https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/23350-hallucinations

If Reynolds were hallucinating, we would not expect such precise correspondence between her subjective experience and objective events witnessed by others. Hallucinations, by their very nature, do not provide accurate information about external reality. — Sam26

Incorrect. A hallucination can involve accurate information. For example, if their eyes or ears registered a bone-saw that could become part of a hallucination.

Further, the example you're citing about Reynalds isn't a great example, because critics of Reynolds note that its more likely they were unconsciously observing at moments of the surgery as consciousness can surge in and out. The problem is that we can't tie the remembering of the observation to the time of brain activity on the table. This is a MAJOR issue with testimony. For there to be any hope of a non-physical observation of the area, the object in question that must be accurately described cannot have crossed the vision of the patient, nor any other physically recognizable sensations like hearing. In tests where such objects have been hidden from the physical senses in a room, NO NDE patient has ever accurately reported them, even when these were very huge and easy to miss things in the room if you were in an out of body perspective.

So be careful with this one, as it borders on a straw man argument.

Perhaps most significantly, the hallucination hypothesis cannot account for veridical perception during periods of documented unconsciousness. Hallucinations do not provide accurate information about distant events, yet NDErs sometimes report observations of activities occurring in other parts of hospitals, conversations among family members miles away, or encounters with deceased individuals whose deaths they couldn't have known about through normal means. — Sam26

This is a good argument. Of course it must be verified that while the person was unconscious that nobody mentioned any of this information that the patient's hearing could pick up. We know for a fact that unconsciousness does not mean senses are turned off. As this cannot often be verified, these examples are worth setting up for careful testing, but cannot be taken outside of a testing environment as true due to this very important fact.

Your entire scientism section is going to instantly be destroyed by anyone who isn't a conspiracy theorist. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the proper scientific method. Science does not seek to prove, it seeks to disprove. A hypothesis is created, and testing is done to destroy that hypothesis. If you cannot prove the hypothesis false, then it stands. Of course, peer review happens, other people test, and they too try to prove the hypothesis wrong.

So, science LOVES NDEs as something to test. Many experiments have been done on NDEs. To show NDEs must be true, you come up with an idea that can't be proven false. Unfortunately, they're always proven false. Its not that we can't try coming up with new hypotheses and experiments and test them. Science is great with that. Its that so far, no hypothesis that has been tested with the goal to prove it false, has not always proven NDEs as a conscious survival outside of the body as false. My advice is to remove the idea that science is not what we should be using. It would be much better to note that science needs to get more creative in its hypotheses, test more, etc. But if you can't do that, better to remove the entire section or anyone worth their intellectual salt is going to dismiss you right out of hand as a conspiracy theorist.

These explanations typically invoke correlations between brain states and conscious experiences, arguing that consciousness must be produced by brain activity since changes in the brain consistently affect mental states.

This argument involves a common logical confusion: mistaking correlation for causation. — Sam26

No, you are making the mistake in thinking this argument applies to brain states in modern day neuroscience. Maybe 20 years ago this argument had a tooth or two. Now it doesn't. The evidence for consciousness and brain activity is far beyond correlation at this point. You need to actively demonstrate a situation in which conscious brain activity does not meet expected outcomes. Which you do here, but you should change your argument to reflect that.

Consider this analogy carefully. When we examine a radio, we find consistent correlations between its components and the programs we hear. Damage the antenna, and reception suffers. Adjust the tuner, and different stations become available. Replace the speaker, and the audio quality changes. These correlations are real and predictable, yet no one concludes that radios generate the electromagnetic signals they recieve. — Sam26

No, because we see they receive signals. This is a poor analogy. Even if we didn't know about signal waves, we would be able to observe the antennae vibrations from the wave receipt. We would have evidence that there was some unseen force affecting the antennae. We have no example of this in the brain. While we haven't discovered the full inner workings yet, we have no evidence of outside interference affecting the brain.

Dr. Eben Alexander's case provides another compelling example. During his week-long coma from bacterial meningitis, his neocortex was essentially non-functional, "mush," as he described it based on his brain scans. According to materialist theories, this should have eliminated higher-order consciousness. Instead, Alexander reported the most profound conscious experience of his life, complete with detailed memories that persisted after recovery. — Sam26

Interesting, but there was no brain death. Low functionality on the neo-cortex specifically shouldn't limit consciousness as less intelligent animals have much smaller neocortexes and still conscious thought. I would not cite materialists here, I would cite scientists carefully to back your point.

Critics sometimes suggest that NDE memories form during brief moments of recovered brain function, either just before clinical death or during resuscitation. This explanation faces several difficulties. — Sam26

This is only pertinent in reports that do not have any ability to objectively match the time. Any that do have the ability to track and correlate do not face this critique.

Please cite the studies that you're noting that do have accurate time measurements. You cite Dr. Dr. Michael Sabom, but he only has two books of testimonies to his name, I'm not seeing any specific scientific articles he published. If you have peer reviewed articles here, this gives a strong case for this counter argument.

For your false memory section, this is generally good. I would argue that many NDEs do not involve false memories. The argument that you'll really need to address here is the fact that under surgery the body is in high survival mode. Just like when a person nearly comes to death while conscious, highly stressful situations can become incredibly vivid and embed themselves in memories for years to come. Again, the accuracy of memories must be accurate descriptions of reality that the patient could not see or hear while unconscious to be legitimate.

Subconscious sensory leakage is a huge counter to your argument, yet you only spend one paragraph on it. Honestly, its probably the main counter to NDEs right now. You need to expand this a LOT more. A quick reference to a few studies looks like you're shying away from it when honestly, its a major stake being driven through the basis of NDEs.

That's enough for now, I might come back later and critique the rest.

Actually some of your criticisms about hallucinations are correct. I have to do more proof reading and editing. However, other criticisms I disagree with and will respond later.

You make several claims here, but much of it is based on assumptions rather than established fact. I will address your points one by one.

First, on hallucinations. You are correct that hallucinations can include fragments from actual sensory input, but that is not enough to explain the best-documented NDE cases. If you want to claim that what was seen or heard was simply incorporated into a hallucination, you have to show that the sensory data was actually available to the patient at the time. In the strongest cases, the sensory channels were either blocked, physically unavailable, or nonfunctional according to monitoring equipment. Simply saying “it could have been heard” or “it could have been seen” is speculation, not evidence.

Regarding Pam Reynolds, you say she may have been semi-conscious at times. That is only a guess. The surgical records and monitoring show no such windows during the key moments she described. If you want to replace the medical record with a theory about fluctuating consciousness, you need more than a possibility. You need documented evidence that it happened in her case.

On your point about hidden-target experiments, a failed target experiment in one type of test does not erase all other corroborated cases. Those experiments test only one channel of perception under low odds of success. A patient missing a card on a high shelf does not explain multiple cases where patients described conversations, procedures, or events in other locations that were later confirmed by witnesses. Negative results in one narrow kind of test do not cancel the many corroborated accounts.

On hearing while unconscious, yes it can happen, but that is exactly why the best cases involve situations where hearing was blocked or brainstem auditory responses were absent. If you want to invoke sensory leakage in those cases, then you need to explain exactly how the information entered. What was the pathway? Was the information even spoken in the room? What was the decibel environment? Without those specifics, “maybe they overheard it” is nothing more than a fallback guess.

On subconscious sensory leakage in general, this has become an all-purpose explanation that is applied to any NDE account no matter the circumstances. Because it can always be invoked and can never be conclusively ruled out, it is an unfalsifiable claim. An explanation that cannot in principle be proven wrong is not scientific. If you think leakage explains a case, you must provide specific conditions under which it happened and show how the information was transmitted. Otherwise, you are just asserting a possibility without evidence.

On science, I am not dismissing its value. What I reject is the double standard in how testimony is treated. Science relies heavily on testimony in countless fields, from medicine to astronomy to history. Saying “science has always proven NDE survival false” is an assertion that requires details. Which hypothesis? Which study? Did it address the strongest, most corroborated cases? Without specifics, this is not an argument; it is a claim.

On correlation versus causation, your confidence in saying that neuroscience has gone “far beyond correlation” ignores that in some NDEs, consciousness appears to function when cortical activity is absent or severely compromised. If brain function were the sole cause of consciousness, this should not occur. The radio analogy is still apt: altering the receiver changes the output but does not prove it generates the signal.

On Eben Alexander, your point that low neocortical function should not limit consciousness is undermined by the fact that his cortex was severely impaired by bacterial meningitis. If you believe that subcortical structures can produce the level of complexity and narrative structure in his account, you need to provide evidence that they were active and capable of doing so at that time. Otherwise, it is another speculation.

Regarding timing, in the most evidential cases, the reported perceptions are tied to medical logs and monitoring data showing absent brain activity. If you believe there was a burst of consciousness during those periods, then identify it in the record. If you cannot, your explanation remains hypothetical.

On false memories, many NDE accounts are recorded immediately after the event and are corroborated by independent witnesses. The idea that stress-induced vividness explains them fails to account for why these vivid experiences so often contain accurate information that could not have been obtained normally.

Finally, on testimony, this is not a weak or inferior form of evidence. In law, medicine, and history, firsthand, corroborated testimony is considered valid and often decisive. To strip it of evidential value in this one domain is to apply a double standard. In cases where the testimony is specific, independently confirmed, and time-locked to periods of absent brain function, speculation is not a rebuttal.

To strip it of evidential value in this one domain is to apply a double standard. In cases where the testimony is specific, independently confirmed, and time-locked to periods of absent brain function, speculation is not a rebuttal. — Sam26

In my opinion its perfectly reasonable to be skeptical in these strange scenarios. Knowledge and evidence here is to sparse substantiate anything as we are talking about some of the most difficult to study phenomena in science generally using methods not exactly renowned for high reliability. But speculating on naturalistic explanations is reasonable considering the body of scientific knowledge we have about how the world works. There is absolutely no reason to prefer speculations that life exists after death or other woo woo imo. Clearly there is bias here. Many of us are biased away from woo woo explanations because of what scientific knowledge and evidence seems to say. Some people are biased in the completely opposite direction, and I have no idea why. Until there is actual good enough data, its difficult for this not to be anymore than people choosing a preference on bias and effectively making a bet. Do you think that the breadth, consistency, reliability of scientific knowledge so far is a reliable predictor that naturalistic explanations will prevail? Or do you want to bet on what has been so far unsubstantiated, conspiratorially evasive, empirically and theoretically murky woo woo?

Absolute madness.

In my opinion its perfectly reasonable to be skeptical in these strange scenarios. Knowledge and evidence here is to sparse substantiate anything — Apustimelogist

You're wrong about this, which shows you haven't read much on the subject. There are millions of accounts, and thousands have been corroborated. How much evidence do you want?

There are millions of accounts, and thousands have been corroborated. How much evidence do you want? — Sam26

I think these kind of things needs more controlled scientific study. We don't even really have a full understanding or mastery of the brain yet to have a reasonable understanding of what could and could not be happening.

I think these kind of things needs more controlled scientific study — Apustimelogist

"Call for volunteers: anyone dying of acute cardiac failure or any other cause, please call Dr. Wu on 1300-HELP ASAP. Your contribution will make a difference!"

They actually do have some studies like this on people. Also on animals, the look at their brains during dying.

Then how do dead people have knowledge of physical events suring NDEs when their brain is shut off?

I don’t know. There are perhaps two likely reasons for this. The brain is still active for a while, the soul remains somehow with the body.

I was being ironic or facetious, in respect of the inherent difficulty of capturing these episodes, which only happen through periods of acute crisis.

Incidentally, apropos of evidence for NDEs and comparable paranormal phenomenon, one major source see Irreducible Mind (Edward F. Kelly et al., 2007), which surveys historical and modern case studies, physiological research on advanced meditators, and detailed NDE reports.

Kelly, Edward F., Emily Williams Kelly, Adam Crabtree, Alan Gauld, Michael Grosso, and Bruce Greyson. Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.

Do you believe in ghosts as well then?

I might, if I saw one.

When I was early primary school age, we spent a year in Aberdeen, northern Scotland. We rented an house on the outskirts, about 2-3 miles out of the city limits. It had been a gatehouse for a mansion owned by the local gentry. Just up the road, there was another home, granite, built centuries earlier (Scotland is ancient in a way Australia can't be.) Apparently that second home had according to local lore been the hanging ground for criminals for some long period. The site had originally been a Christian monastery that had been sacked by the Viking invaders. The inhabitants would find archeological relics while doing the gardening.

Aberdeen, being that far north, has very short days in winter, sunset is before 4:00pm. A fog would roll in off the North Sea so thick you couldn't see your hand in front of your face. In that environment, in those ancient buildings, with centuries of habitation and violent deaths, it sure wasn't hard to believe in ghosts.

Not that I saw any ;-)

if you think testimony isn’t evidence, then you’re not just wrong— — Sam26

It's not that "testimony isn't evidence", it's that "testimony" is mostly unreliable just like introspection. Such subjective accounts of extraordinary claims absent extraordinary evidence (or at least objective corroboration) are neither credible nor compelling to most nongullible, secular thinkers who have not had an alleged "NDE" themselves. In fact, it's dogmatic of you, Sam, to believe "testimony of NDE" is sufficient evidence for believing NDEs happen or that they prove "consciousness survives brain death" (re: afterlife).

I already address some of this in my book, so I'll use part of that, with minor variations.

(1) Consciousness survives death.
I don’t mean “it might” or “it’s suggestive.” I mean the best explanation of the corroborated record is that conscious awareness can operate when the brain is not doing the work we ordinarily think is required. My standard is the same one we already trust in serious contexts: volume, variety, consistency, independent corroboration, and firsthand proximity. When a patient accurately reports instruments, dialogue, or events time-locked to clinical shutdown, and those details are verified independently by staff, logs, and physical setup, testimony has been converted into public evidence. If a brain-only story can explain those veridical, time-stamped cases without ad hoc rescues, show it. Until then, survival fits the data better.

(2) “Extraordinary” doesn’t apply here.
“Extraordinary” is not a magic word; it’s a sliding label tied to your priors. With millions of reports globally and a large subset that has passed basic corroboration, NDEs are not rare curios, they’re a recurring human phenomenon. In any other domain, repeated, independently confirmed witness reports are exactly how we move a claim from “weird” to “evidential.” If you insist this is still “extraordinary,” be consistent: then a huge fraction of what courts, historians, clinicians, and field scientists rely on is “extraordinary” too. You can make that move, but it collapses your standard for knowledge everywhere, not just here.

About “extraordinary evidence.”
I’m not lowering the bar; I’m refusing a special bar that appears only when testimony points beyond materialism. For one-off clinical events you cannot stage on demand, the right methodological analogues are forensics and observational science, not particle physics. There, convergence + independent checks is the gold standard. That’s the standard I’m using.

If you think that still isn’t enough, then do the intellectually honest thing and name a stopping rule: What number of independently verified, time-locked cases would move you? What timing constraints, how many witnesses, what documentation? If your answer is effectively “nothing,” then this isn’t about evidence at all; it’s about protecting a conclusion. And, as I've said before, this is a fallacy (it's self-sealing).

I’m staking out a clear, falsifiable position: show that the best-corroborated NDE cases can be fully accounted for by normal sensory access, contamination, or residual brain activity without moving goalposts or ignoring the time-locking, and I’ll revise. But until that happens, the fair reading of the record is the one I’m giving: consciousness survives death, and the evidence we already have is enough to say so.

You seem to skip over much of my argument and keep repeating the same tired claims. I think you agree with me, but are afraid to make the inference. :grin:

If you think that still isn’t enough, then do the intellectually honest thing and name a stopping rule ... — Sam26

As I wrote in my previous post: at least objective corroboration – not just ad hoc circumstantial coincidences – testable-controlled, experimental evidence.

While it is your prerogative (and evasive tactic) to reply anyway you wish, you never actually respond to my explicit criticisms. Believe whatever you like, your NDE "argument" (dogma), Sam, does not convince me for the reasons I've given many times. Anyway, good luck with the book. :smirk:

if NDEs were objective, then intelligence agencies around the world would be training spies to induce them for purposes of remote viewing. Alas, the Stargate Project failed to estabish the objectivity of OBEs and disclosed the entire project.

If remote viewing test results are invariably bad for lucid dreamers with living brains, then I'm fairly confident that their results are not going to improve by inducing actual brain death.

:smirk: :up: