It is testimony after all.

Can anyone here show that NDEs are caused by the consciousness leaving the body?

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.

You have not presented any evidence at all to support the claim that NDEs are caused by the consciousnesses leaving the body. None at all. All you did was try to pathetically stack the deck in favor of your "testimony" while overlooking the one of the most basic principles in science: Observation does not prove causation.

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.

Before you try to act scientific maybe learn the very basics of science.

http://bolt.mph.ufl.edu/6050-6052/unit-2/causation-and-observational-studies/

You have not presented any evidence at all to support the claim that NDEs are caused by the consciousnesses leaving the body. — Jeremiah

I don't know of any evidence of any kind about the nature of consciousness other than we experience it.

You have not presented any evidence at all to support the claim that NDEs are caused by the consciousnesses leaving the body. None at all. All you did was try to pathetically stack the deck in favor of your "testimony" while overlooking the one of the most basic principles in science: Observation does not prove causation. — Jeremiah

Sam26 is making a good faith effort to use reason to address and issue. He and I are having some disagreements, but that's how it works. You are not contributing to the discussion.

Don't care.

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.

You are one making a huge deal over the observational, trying to act all formal. I think with my statement you realized the giant gap in your assessment and now you are back peddling. You now want it to be less formal. That is what people like you do, when you realize that your "mountain" of evidence is really just a pile of BS you become wishy washy.

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.

How about you address my central point, that you have no evidence at all of a cause effect relationship.

No evidence, none at all, not one tiny bit of evidence.

I wonder if the massive physical stress of almost dying could put strain on the human brain? Do you think that is possible? Or maybe when you are close to death invisible shoe fairies pop out and drug you.

It is amazing what people just gloss over so they can convince themselves that they are immortal. Are you really that scared of death?

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. — Sam26

I think I have been addressing the arguments in your post. You identify five factors that make testimonial evidence credible:

• Number of people involved - you reference a 1992 Gallup Poll that indicates about 5% of people report an NDE. That is the kind of evidence I'm talking about. What questions did the poll actually ask? Do they have demographic information about the people who answered the poll? How did they define NDE?
  
• Diversity of people involved - You say "We have testimonial evidence from different cultures, different age groups, different educational backgrounds, different religious backgrounds, different world views, and reports of these experiences from a wide variety of settings, but you've told us nothing specific about the people involved. Are they really diverse? What kind of person has that kind of experience? Religious ones? Atheists? Educated people? You also say "NDEs occur in a variety of settings, including drowning, electrocution, while awake, while on the operating table, after a heart attack, etc."
  
• Consistency - I've heard the same kinds of stories you have about the types of experiences people have. I have no way of really evaluating. You say "The following is a list of what has been reported by a large percentage of those who have had the experience." and then go on to list them. Where did this information come from? Was it included in the Gallup poll?
  
• Corroboration by objective means - You say " Many of the NDEs can be confirmed as being accurate by those who were closely connected in some way to the one having the NDE," but you don't present any specific evidence. Also, I don't understand how someone can corroborate the kinds of experiences you describe as common in NDEs. write about You yourself mentioned that the same type of experiences are reported by people using drugs.
  
• First hand reports vs. hearsay - As far as I can tell, your whole argument may be hearsay - it's based on books you've read. Did the writers perform the interviews? Immediately after the event or later?

I can understand your frustration with my approach. I haven't even addressed the content of your argument or tried to provide explanations for your claims. I don't have a great deal of knowledge about the neurological, anatomical, or physiological characteristics of the brain and mind under stressful conditions. That's a fair point, but you haven't convincingly demonstrated there is any phenomenon to explain.

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.

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.

Have you gone back to look at testimonials about the spirit world? In the mid to late Victorian period a lot of bright, educated people were very interested in communication with the dead, attended seances, and thought there was something to it. To be fair, there were a lot of Victorians who also thought it was total nonsense.

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.

The point was that you might find their accounts interesting. You might find them ridiculous or compelling.

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.

There is an analogy between moving from dream states to waking states that is very similar to moving from waking states to a state of disembodied consciousness that I find interesting. In dream states we generally find that our senses are somewhat dulled as compared to waking states. We also know that our knowledge of who we are is dumbed-down in dream states, and that knowledge in general is dumbed-down. Our memories are also affected, that is, we don't have access to most of our memories. Also our fears and our beliefs about being harmed are not real. Our perspective about dream reality changes after we wake up, we see the harm that was done in the dream from a perspective that almost totally mitigates, or even totally mitigates the harm we believed was done to us. All of these things happen when people have an NDE. Sensory experiences are heightened, knowledge is expanded, memories return, and we find that we weren't harmed at all. In fact, people find that nothing can harm them ultimately.

In a dream state, our entire sensation of experience changes, e.g. the views, the possibilities? Current theories about the brain have no explanation for this switch in state. In fact, it is not even acknowledged. All of a sudden the computer in the brain goes haywire and then miraculously goes back to the awake state again. Understanding this phenomenon is the path to better understanding the nature consciousness.

If one wishes to engage in the exploration of consciousness then when must observe it directly in its totality. Consciousness is part memory and memory survives as in what is referred to as inherited, inborn, innate, traits.

Show me evidence — T Clark

Hi T Clark, there was a doctor of sorts on TV talking a few months back. He said he'd spent his life working with patients on the edge of death (actually physically recording their brain wave activity). He was wearing a white coat, so I assume he was telling the truth.

Anyway, he said that often after the brain waves go flat and the person is 'dead' there is a sudden flash of brain wave activity that can go on for quite a few seconds. I wish I knew this OP was coming up, I might have paid more attention to the name of the show.

He said, that during his lifetime there had been several occassions when the patient, being dead, had suddenly sat bolt upright in bed and stared ahead. He said the eyes weren't blank, like the eyes of a dead fish (I'm paraphrasing), he said they were definitely looking at something. There was something in their visual field. Then they collapsed back down dead again.

How's that? Second hand testimonial evidence from the TV should never be doubted, but seriously, it does make you think. And while we're on testimonial evidence, when my Great Grandmother?? passed, my Grandmother went out and starting hosing the garden at that exact time. It was 4am, and when my Pop asked her what she was doing, she replied, "She's dead." Weird huh? She had been in hospital.

I'll tell you another story, knowing how much you like testimonial evidence :). I was working many years ago putting insulation in people's ceilings. I came down and looked at the elderly guy's clock on the wall. It had stopped. I said to him 'Hey, you know your clock has stopped?"

He said, "Yeah, my wife went on a cruise two years ago. Up until that time the clock had never missed a beat. She had a heart attack and died. The clock stopped on that day and time of death was what's on the clock." Of course, maybe the fact it had never missed a beat just meant it was due for a battery change.

Ya, I've heard those kinds of stories, but I don't just accept testimony because it sounds interesting. However, if the same kind of testimony is repeated by thousands of people, and what people saw can be verified by others, that is, can be corroborated by others who were in a position to know, then there might be something to it. It's more than, say, others saying yes the clock did stop when so-and-so died. If people made claims that they heard and saw things from a third person perspective, like conversations in another room, or doctors and nurses performing procedures on them when their heart and brain functions weren't descernible; and these claims can be verified, then there maybe something to the testimony. Moreover, if the claims keep happening over and over again, then there may be something to the testimony.

Part of the problem is that people are so invested in a particular world view that they are not willing to consider non-materialist views, or even evidence that goes against their conclusions. For 40 years I considered myself a Christian, but when the evidence and arguments went against my beliefs I was willing to give up my religious beliefs. People get too dogmatic about their beliefs, and it happens not just with religious belief, but with other beliefs like politics, and even scientific beliefs.

@Sam26

I'm interpreting the OP an the other posts you have made as invitations to analyse whether the testimony of people who have NDEs is sufficient to conclude that they are experiencing something real or actual. IE: that the self reported content of the NDE is real in the same sense that 'I see the door to my house and it's really there' is real. I'll call this property 'veridicality' of the NDE.

So, how can the veridicality of the NDE be established? One necessary condition for their veridicality would be to see if the experiences within the NDE obtain in a majority of experiences. If you take people to the door of your house, most people would see the door - if most people didn't see the door, then I think it would be grounds to doubt that there was a door. If I saw the door, and most people didn't, then I would have grounds to doubt that my experiences containing the door were veridical.

IE, if most people do not experience a specific NDE event (like love or disembodiment, in the list of 15) given that they have had an NDE and that they have almost died, then there's grounds for doubting the veridicality of the experience. 15% of people have had an NDE in those conditions in America according to a Gallup poll, of these 9% reported the classic out of body experience, 11% said they had entered another realm and 8% had encountered otherworldly beings. Assuming these categories are independent and exhaustive, you can obtain that 72% of people who had an NDE experienced nothing contained in the list or nothing at all. I'd be surprised if they were exhaustive, but it still looks like the majority of people who had an NDE couldn't categorise it according to listed tropes in the poll OR alternatively they nearly died and experienced nothing.

However, this doesn't mean 'nothing is going on', I'm reminded of 'the dress' perceptual illusion that was commonplace on the internet a few years ago. There were consensus views that it was white and that it was dark blue. I think it would be quite silly to argue whether it was really white or really dark blue, the far more likely occurrence is that there is some mental or perceptual event that induces the different colours in different people.

I believe this is analogous - there is no majority consensus on 'what happens during an NDE', and no experiential consensus (a long list of alternatives) on what the contents of the NDE are. I therefore believe it's likely that NDEs are the result of some currently not understood mental or perceptual event that need not correspond with anything 'out there'.

I'm the same as you. I'm only interested in understanding the nature of life and the nature of nature. I experience and I observe and I read, and I go where it takes me.