Regarding NDE's along the lines of what you're basing your thoughts on...
Could it be the case that those experiences were lucid and vivid like some dreams? I mean, one's physiological sensory perception can work just fine even if the agent is unaware of the fact that it's working. This may help explain how the visions/experience matched up to what was going on in the room, as corroborated by staff and others? — creativesoul
The only way there could be testimonial evidence would be if there's reincarnation, and if people who have reincarnated can sometimes remember their past life. And the only way that could be verifiable would be if their previous life had been in this same world, at an earlier historical period. And they'd have to remember details that they couldn't have known if they hadn't lived that previous life.
How could that be verified? After all, it's about the past. Anyone could look up facts about the past, or otherwise research them. Doesn't it seem as if it would be impossible to determine whether someone found out those facts about the past via a past life, or by, in some way, researching it?
No, it seems to me that the only way there could be testimonial evidence of survival of death would be if someone could be reincarnated here, whose past life was in our future. Then s/he could make predictions that s/he couldn't possibly know otherwise. — Michael Ossipoff
so I do believe based on the testimony that we can live out other lives by simply re-entering another body. I don't believe in reincarnation in this sense, I don't believe in the doctrine of reincarnation as put forth by religious types.
Reincarnation is implied by my metaphysics. As I said, you're in this life because there's a life-experience possibility-story about you. Whatever is the reason why this life began, then, if that reason remains at the end of this life, what does that suggest?
Just briefly, I don't believe it's a matter of conscious choice. I believe it happens at a stage death-shutdown at which there's no waking-conscioujsness,and we don't remember our recently ended life, and all that remains are subconscious incinations, subconscious habitual and inherited attributes (referred to in Vedanta as "vasanas".)
For that reason, because of the degree of shutdown at the time of reincarnation, I also don't believe that we ever remember a past life.
But I'm not trying to sound contentious. ...just mentioning a different position on the matter.
Michael Ossipoff — Michael Ossipoff
But what does it mean for me to leave my body and enter another body? What is doing the exiting and entering? — Marchesk
But what does it mean for me to leave my body and enter another body?
What is doing the exiting and entering?
What other criteria would help to strengthen testimonial evidence? — Sam26
Even though you've lost (waking) consciousness,and (as in dream-sleep) don't know about the life you were in, you're still you, with your subconscious feelings, experience, perception, awareness (of feelings and experience). — Michael Ossipoff
"Even though you've lost (waking) consciousness,and (as in dream-sleep) don't know about the life you were in, you're still you, with your subconscious feelings, experience, perception, awareness (of feelings and experience)". — Michael Ossipoff
But I'm not the same me, because in a different body, I will have different feelings, experiences, perceptions, etc. — Marchesk
Key questions of the first argument: what are the relevant qualities of testimonial data to be included as part of an analysis of whether NDE experiences are veridical? And this is tied to the question: what would evidence for NDEs being veridical look like?
(1) Reducing the effective sample size of testimonials to ones which are relevant for studying whether the accurate statements arose because of the NDE.
(1i) This was done through applying the aforementioned filters on observational data to preclude confounding factors, leaving few testimonials.
(2)If NDEs were in the aggregate veridical, we would expect accurate descriptions during NDEs because of NDEs to be common.
(2)i This is established through the door analogy. If a person is exposed to a door, they will see a door if the door is there because the door is there (if it's there). This would give a high proportion of accurate descriptions in those cases which satisfy the criteria.
(3) We do not observe many cases of NDEs that satisfy the filters.
(4) The rarity of accurate descriptions in testimonials satisfying the filtering criteria are consistent with these phenomena arising out of a highly improbable random mechanism.
(4i) More detail: with the door example, accurate descriptions satisfying the filter are too common to be the product of solely rare chance.
(5) There is not enough relevant data to support that NDEs caused the accurate statements.
(5i) relevance being established by the filtering criterion. — fdrake
The door example is an example of a simple veridical perception, which is why it won't do when compared with more complex NDEs. NDEs are good examples of everyday reports, they are virtually identical with everyday testimonials you might get when reporting on an event. Thus, unless one has good reason to dismiss them, without speculating on what might rule them out, I contend there is enough there to warrant the conclusion my argument makes.Key questions of the second argument: what would the descriptions in NDEs have to look like to be consistent? Can we describe a given person's NDE before it happens with a sequence of non-disjunctive statements? Why would the sequence taking a disjunctive form establish the non-consistency of NDEs?
I think the difference between your Alaska example and the door example, and the differences between each and a particular NDE are illustrative here.
The door example is different from your Alaska example. The door example is a model of a simple veridical perception, the Alaska example's 'parts of the state' are generated by the observed thematics of NDEs, and so can always be made consistent descriptions of NDEs in the aggregate through iterated disjunction. This will not help us predict the content of a particular person's NDE other than saying something like 'it is likely to contain an OBE and have at least one of these thematic sensations within it'.
You have aggregated the general thematics of the testimonials and are now claiming that they are consistent based off of the idea that they obey these general thematics. The door is consistent, people see the door if the door's there. We cannot tell 'if the door is there' - some kind of representational truth- with the general thematics of NDEs, since of course particular NDEs are likely to satisfy some subset of the derived thematic properties of their aggregate! Furthermore, if we could tell this from typical NDE content descriptions, the testimonials which satisfy the filtering criteria are likely to be far more common.
Points of Commonality and Difference — fdrake
.I don't like using the term reincarnation because it carries a lot of religious baggage.
.Part of the problem with reincarnation, as I understand it, is that there is no continuity of memory, which is a big problem in terms of saying that it's you that lived in the past.
Is it wrong, or somehow inadvisable, to use words that were used in the earliest discussion of these topics?
.If there is no continuity of memory or experiences
.My belief based on NDEs, and what people have reported in more in depth NDEs, is that once we leave our bodies
.our consciousness is expanded, that is, our memories and knowledge returns.
.It's very similar to waking from a dream state, which is a lower state of consciousness.
.Many people have reported that their memories return
.Many also report that they chose to have the experience of being human, and that many of the experiences they have in this human reality, are experiences they chose to have before coming here
.People have reported seeing people getting ready to be born, i.e., waiting for a body to enter.
.People also report that their essence is that of a much higher being, viz., that the experience of being human is a much lower form of life than what we truly are. The point here is that our memories and knowledge remain intact
., just as when you're in a dream your memories and knowledge are diminished, but when you wake up it all returns.
..
Thus the essence of who you are remains intact
.There is also plenty of testimonial evidence that our identities remain intact.
.When we die we return to our true selves, just as we do when we wake from a dream.
.One of the things that supports this idea is that people claim to see friends and family who have already passed on, and they are essentially the same person. Although they seem to be in a heightened state of awareness.
.I'm speculating, but I think we are all part of a vast consciousness or mind, i.e., we are individual pieces of the mind with our own individuality.
.It seems that everything that's taking place is taking place in a mind or minds, and that every possible reality is part of what that mind creates.
.This might explain why people who have an NDE report feeling connected with everything, as if everything is alive. If what I'm saying is true, then time and distance are in a sense illusory.
.Moreover, if this is true then we can enter into any reality we like, this is just one reality among many.
Moreover, the one thing that stands out in these testimonials is the OBE, which you seem to believe in. If one believes people can have OBEs, then how can one not believe that one can have accurate descriptions of their OBEs? Moreover, how is having an OBE not evidence of consciousness extending beyond the body? Unless your contention is that the OBE is dependent upon the body, but then the question arises, how are the testimonials of an OBE that is dependent on the body, any different from the OBEs people describe when the brain and heart are not functioning? How can you believe the testimonials of the former and not the latter?
I don't understand what it would mean to say it's you without continuity of memory. How can there be continuity of experience without remembering your experiences? Memory is an essential ingredient in continuity of the person. — Sam26
You're saying it's not you, but it's you - at the very least it's confusing, and at most it's contradictory.
I take descriptions of NDEs as accurate descriptions of what the people experienced (a truism), but not necessarily in accord with what actually happened. — fdrake
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.