Hey Sam...

I want to first say that you're a model for how to appropriately interact on forums such as this. You may remember my avatar name, maybe not. Either way I've been reading you and others since before the old old philosophy site went haywire(the one with five red apples, timeline, hypersonic, yourself, and so so many others).

Regarding the topic, I have a few personal experiences to add, and a possible alternative explanation.

Personally, I've had more than one NDE that I'm aware of. The first I was comatose with bleak diagnosis. Massive head injury. I remember nothing until long after coming out of it.

The second I never lost consciousness. It involved a 'miraculous' escape - of sorts - from a vehicular collision which would have certainly been deadly. My car was traveling well in excess of 60mph on an old well-paved country road. The road was both hilly and curvy and I knew it all too well. The estimated speed is quite conservative actually. I regularly drove in excess of 80mph on that road and near that particular area/location.

As my car was cresting a hill on a curve, I knew another car was approaching from the other direction by virtue of the headlights(it was pre-dawn). When reaching the top of the hill, the other vehicle was directly in front of me, headlights blinding - in my lane - not the other. In no time whatsoever, I reacted purely without deliberation, quickly swerving the car to the right(towards the roadside drainage ditch) and then just as suddenly back to the left.

The approaching car was suddenly in my rear view mirror quickly disappearing as I rounded the left hand curve. I was literally trembling and awestruck at the fact that I was still ok and somehow still driving on the road??? That feeling of sheer disbelief lasted most of the day, but quickly returned in full force after actually stopping on the return trip to the same location, in an attempt to figure out exactly how I didn't end up crashing.

The simple facts...

The road literally had no shoulder. The other car was - all of the sudden - directly in front of me(20ft away at most). I was traveling at least 60mph. The other was traveling at an unknown speed, but the speed limit was 45. My car had no place to go.

The only place that would even be able to accomodate a car was a single car width driveway on the right hand side of the road well past the crest of the hill and just prior to a downhill left curve. There is no physical way for my car - which was brand new and quite maneuverable - to be traveling at that speed and be steered into and back out of such a narrow driveway. Nevermind the unlikely event that the other car, my car, and that driveway were all in perfect relationship to one another in order for it to even be the case that at the exact moment I veered, the driveway just happened to be there.

While I cannot be certain, I suspect that the other car was actually a newspaper delivery person who was bouncing 'back and forth' between mailboxes on both sides of that road. The houses are acres and acres apart in that area. That particular day I had left 2 hrs earlier than most days, and the early departure happened again afterwards. A few times after, I noticed a newspaper delivery person, and on one occasion in particular, I also witnessed the bouncing act.

This, however, didn't offer evidence for a better 'physical' explanation, per se. Rather, it further confirmed that something quite inexplicable happened. You see, if the car was indeed the delivery person crossing back over the road, then I couldn't have possibly swerved into that driveway, for it was on the other side of the mailbox, and the delivery vehicle would have had to have been between my car and the mailbox.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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?

I have a good education in biology and cognitive science so it's hard for me to accept that it simply isn't psychological phenomena. I do have issues with materialist theories of consciousness and made my objections known. I haven't read through this thread, but I will when I have more time.

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

Thanks for the remarks Creative, and yes I do remember you, and the people you mentioned. We go all the way back to Ephilosopher, which was more than 10 years ago. Sometimes I've wondered whether it's worth it to spend time in these forums, but as I look back at the time spent writing and responding to people, it has helped. Even though it can be a pain in the butt. I wish fiveredapples wouldn't get himself kicked out of these forums - I disagree with him about a lot of things, but he definitely knows how to argue. He's just too hard on people.

Can it be lucid dreaming? I've had lucid dreams, but I know the difference between a lucid dream and reality, that is, after having a lucid dream, I'm able to tell the difference. Also there are too many accounts of people without a heartbeat and without any measurable brain activity, so the question arises, how are they able to have lucid dreams under such conditions? And how would one explain how it is that people are reporting the same things, such as, seeing dead relatives and friends, having a life review, etc. I've never heard of lucid dreams matching with other people's lucid dreams. Nor have I heard of consistent reports of lucid dreaming where people report seeing themselves from a third person perspective. Finally, it's also interesting that people report that what their seeing is more real than this reality, as if this is the dream, that is, their sensory perceptions seem to be enhanced. Dreams tend to be a dumbed-down version of reality.

Thanks again Creative.

Sam26, you didn't give an argument based on testimonial evidence.

Anyway, since this is about survival after the end of the body, it would be difficult to get testimonial evidence, because, even if the person remembered the life that had ended, how would they communicate it to us?

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.

Now, look at all of the special conditions needed, in order for there to be testimonial evidence of survival of death. It's hardly likely. ...especially since I claim that there's no reason to expect someone to be reincarnated from one historical period to another in thje same world. ...and especially since I claim that reincarnation doesn't include a memory of one's past life.

That's a lot of "if"s. But only under that special set of conditions could there be any reliable testimonial evidence.

In any case, ask yourself what it would mean to not "survive" death. Do you mean that you'd experience the time after the dissolution of your body, and you'd, at that time, experience "oblivion"?

1. If you're experiencing after-dissolution oblivion, doesn't that mean that you've survived death?

2. Obviously that doesn't make sense. Your survivors will experience time after the dissolution of your body, but you certainly won't. So you never experience the hypothetical but meaningless "oblivion".

(So, by the way, don't anyone commit suicide to achieve oblivion, because there's obviously no such thing, for the reason that I stated above.)

We needn't even go into what happens for you at death. But the issue of "surviving" death doesn't really have meaning as a Yes/No debate-issue, for the reasons that I've stated above.

Michael Ossipoff

Sam26--

My apologies. You did give an argument based on testimony. That's what happens when I reply without reading more of the thread.

Yes, there's good reason to believe that NDEs are genuine, and that the reports are valid.

There was a surgeon who had a particularly unusual NDE report. He was significantly more shut-down than in other NDE instances, and so there were no communications or conversations. He evidently reached a deeper stage of death, and was resuscitated. His book is titled Proof of Heaven.

NDEs happen at an early stage of death,with that surgeon's NDE being an exception different from most.

Most NDEs happen when shutdown hasn't proceeded very far. That doesn't tell us much about what eventually happens. That surgeon's report is fascinating, because if might be a rare glimpse of a stage of shutdown that's much closer to the full shutdown of the body.

By the way, the NDE reports sound very much like the temporary Heavens and Hells described by Hinduism and Buddhism.

Michael Ossipoff

But I should add this:

Obviously, because those people who reported the NDEs were resuscitated early enough for resuscitation to be possible, the NDE reports don't prove survival past that stage.

Of course undeniably they say something about what the relatively early stages of death are like, and the person has an indication of the decidedly positive nature of death (...but the reports are decidedly negative when the near-death was due to suicide).

...and the surgeon's NDE report is particularly interesting, for the reason that I mentioned.


But, regarding the question about survival of death, my answer is in my first of these three posts. It isn't necessary to prove survival by testimony, because the question loses its meaning, because, for the reason that I described, there's can be no such thing as an experience of oblivion after death..

Michael Ossipoff

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

What I would say about past lives is the following: There are many reports (thousands) that people remember, while in their NDE, that they and others have lived other lives. Of course it first has to be established that the NDE testimonials are indeed veridical. I believe they are, 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.

There are also reports by those who have taken DMT that coincide with the NDE reports of living other lives. I'm not saying that the testimonial evidence for this is as strong as the claim I'm making about consciousness surviving the body, which is only what I'm claiming in this thread. Since almost 100% of those who have an NDE report that their consciousness experience was from a third-person perspective, this is the strongest part of the argument based on testimony; and it's the one I'm inferring.

There does seem to be some evidence that after we live out this life, we can choose other lives, either in this reality or another reality.

There is also evidence that many religious interpretations of NDE accounts are heavily influenced by culture. So I put little stock in people's claims about heaven or hell, the doctrine of reincarnation, or the seeing of religious figures (Jesus, angels, etc.).

Finally, just a quick remark about suicide. When I first started studying NDEs I thought that people who committed suicide had a much more negative NDE, and some do, but after reading many thousands more I have concluded that this isn't the case. Although I'm not sure of the percentages.

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.

Would you clarify that distinction between what you don't believe about reincarnation?

I think we agree that there is probably reincarnation, but we don't agree about its nature.

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

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

What I'm trying to do is draw conclusions based on the testimonial evidence. The main thrust of this thread is the conclusion that consciousness survives bodily existence. I have drawn other conclusions based on the testimony, but the strongest conclusion one can infer from the evidence is that consciousness is not a product of our bodies. If the evidence for this is found to be weak, then all of the conclusions that I've made are incorrect, because all of the other evidence is not as nearly as strong.

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. If there is no continuity of memory or experiences, then one can claim to be anyone, but this seems at the very least to be contradictory. 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 and that their knowledge expands. 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, not everything, but many things. 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, and this is an important part of making any sense of living various lives. The dream analogy in a lot of ways provides a lot of similarities to what happens when we leave this life.

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.

There are many questions that are answered if indeed one can believe these accounts. One is that we do have free will, but only up to a point. Certain experiences may be determined, but it seems that you do have a certain amount of freedom within the experience. You make choices about how you will respond or act within the experience. In one sense there are certain things that are determined, but in another sense one does have free choice within the experience. It's like being in a river that's moving us in a certain direction, but also having the ability to move left or right within the scope of the movement of the river.

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. It's like the brain in a vat, but the difference is we know we are a brain in a vat, we choose what we want to experience, and we can choose to have the experiences with friends. Of course it's much more than just being a brain in a vat because we have experiences with others, and the relationships are of a much higher order than anything we can experience here.

Sorry I got carried away. :-O

believe they are, so I do believe based on the testimony that we can live out other lives by simply re-entering another body. — Sam26

But what does it mean for me to leave my body and enter another body? What is doing the exiting and entering?

No one has the answer to that question. Even if the evidence is enough to support consciousness surviving the body, we don't know what consciousness is composed of. The most you can say is that it's some kind of energy, but who knows.

But what does it mean for me to leave my body and enter another body? What is doing the exiting and entering? — Marchesk

Of course it was Sam26 that you asked, but I'd like to say my answer:

(First, it's emphasized that neither I nor Sam26 claims proof that there's reincarnation. He cites testimonial evidence, and, I claim that my metaphysics implies reincarnation. Because of differences regarding the nature of reincarnation, of course Sam26's answer and my answer are likely to differ..)

You asked:

But what does it mean for me to leave my body and enter another body?

When you've lost waking-consciousness to the degree that you don't remember the life that has just ended, or the fact that a life has just ended, but you retain perception and awareness (In dreams, too, you don't know that there's a different, waking, life other than that of the dream), and of course you retain your inherited and acquired habits, tendencies, inclinations, feelings, and future-orientation--At that time you could be in an experience story about a life ending, or a life beginning. You're future-oriented, and your subconscious feelings are about life. So:

Among the infinity of life-experience possibility-stories, there's one that starts out where you are.

As I said, if the reason why this life started still obtains at the end of this life, then why wouldn't it happen again?

No, you don't have a perception of going from one body to another, or from one life to another. You're unconscious. But you're having vague experiences, awareness and perceptions. You don't know what's going on. Then a series of things happen that are bewildering and unexplained. What's surprising about that? Life isn't predictable.

...just as the Michaelson-Morely experiment result was unexplained until more physics was made available, in the form of relativity....just as the planet Mercury's rotation of apsides couldn't be explained until general relativity was introduced.. ...just as the black-body radiation energy-wavelength curve couldn't be explained till Max Planck showed that it can be explained if the radiation behaves as if energy is quantized (It was later shown that energy is quantized, at least under some conditions).

One thing about a life-experience possiblity-story is that it must be consistent (otherwise it wouldn't be a possibility story.

In those physics examples, seemingly unexplained things happened, which later made sense when the physics information was available to explain them.

Likewise, the bewildering unexplained events of birth and early infancy become explained later, in a self-consistent way. And, ongoingly, explanations eventually come, to explain,at least to some degree, previous events, in a self-consistent way. And, at every stage of life, right from infancy, we're interested in the consistencies in our surroundings, for obvious practical reasons (which we at first don't even know about).

Anyway, so my answer is that, at death, after such experiences as NDE reports describe, when real unconsciousness arrives, you later find yourself experiencing changes. You might not know much about life at that point, but it's about changes. And you soon find that these changes have led to a relatively-stable consistent siituation, which you begin learning about, and instinctively studying and discovering the consistencies of.

At no time did you perceive a transition to a new life. You just eventually experienced unexplained and bewildering events, changing situations, which you soon discover to be stable, with some consistencies. Later, you'll call that being in a life.

Of course you have no memory of or knowledge of any previous life.

What is doing the exiting and entering?

You, of course.

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).

So you're still there, and it's the same you, continuously, throughout. There's continuity-of-experience, without which, of course, we couldn't speak of reincarnation.

Michael Ossipoff

Hey Sam. So, I'm wondering here. Since you've been researching first hand accounts of NDE's, have you noticed any similarities that run along familial, societal, and/or cultural lines? I mean, are there any stories and/or elements therein specific to such subjective particulars?

Yes, culture plays an important role in how people integrate or interpret what they see. For example, Christians may interpret beings they see as an angel or as Jesus, or they may interpret darkness as hell, etc. The same is true of other cultural beliefs, much of what is interpreted is interpreted in terms of what people already believe. This is why it's important to read many accounts of what's happening, and to read what other cultures are reporting. One account that's important is Dr. Eban Alexander's account of his NDE. He was not a spiritual person prior to his NDE, and he is urged after his NDE to write down everything he could remember before reading about other NDEs.

This happens with dreams too, that is, people sometime interpret their dreams based on cultural beliefs. And it's not only dreams, but people in general interpret all kinds of things based on their cultural beliefs, so this is not something unusual. In fact, people will interpret these NDEs based on their metaphysical beliefs, or their materialistic beliefs.

Interesting.

Do we not need to examine all of the examples with the intentional purpose of looking to identify and isolate each and every common denominator? I suppose I'm pointing out the need for us to establish and/or determine the necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness.

If it means anything at all for us to say that consciousness can be both - disembodied and still yet extant in some adequate sense of the word - then we must seek to establish a minimum criterion which, when met, will count as being an example of consciousness. Then and only then can we have some idea of what we're talking about when discussing whether or not consciousness can exist independently of a physical and/or material body.

Consciousness - at its core - must consist in/of that which is common to each and every example thereof; the set and/or group of common denominators remaining extant after removing all that is subject to individual(familial, historical, and/or cultural) particulars.

Follow me?

What other criteria would help to strengthen testimonial evidence? — Sam26

My two-cents:

Testimonial statements need to satisfy the following criteria:

1. The person must be reliable i.e. s/he must be honest.

2. The testimony must fit in with the existing knowledge framework. I think this is your criteria of consistency.

3. Corroboration is a plus point, especially if varied - men, women, animals, instruments, etc.

Testimonial statements re ''consciousness surviving the body'' fail on 2 and 3 - at least that's'what they say.

The most you can say is that it's some kind of energy, but who knows. — Sam26

Is that enough to call it "me"? To say that I left one body to enter another one?

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.

"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

No one's saying you're the same person next time.

In the new life, you're not the same you, but you're still you, by virtue of continuity of experience.

...and with various subconscious hereditary and acquired feelings, attributes, tendencies, inclinations retained from the previous life.

Michael Ossipoff

I'm glad you agree that testimonial data which satisfies the criteria I outlined is rare. 4000 accounts quickly becomes a lot less when the data is filtered to the relevant cases for consideration. I realise I made a few strands of arguments, so let me detail the threads individually. The thrust of my major argument consists of a few steps (and this is the one I am most convinced by). Key sentences for the argument are given by numbers, sub-steps and supporting statements are given by the appropriate argument number then Roman numerals.

Argument 1
___________________________________________________________________________________________

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.


Argument 2
____________________________________________________________________________________________

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
____________________________________________________________________________________________

I agree that there are general themes to NDEs. I believe people can have OBEs.

I do not believe NDEs are veridical. I don't think the quality of this testimonial data is high enough to address the question of NDE veridicality (needs to be close to the quality of a controlled experiment for causal claims).Thus I don't believe people are really 'outside their bodies' based on this evidence. I have further reservations on the idea of disembodied human consciousness independent of the issues of NDE testimony (typical counterpoints: brain-death and brain damage, phantom limbs).

I've tried to keep my reservations out of the analysis of testimony, but I believe (and this need not be addressed) that the improbability of disembodied consciousness casts doubt on the idea of NDE (and psychotropic drug use experience) veridicality.

Edit: I've removed the mansion thought experiment, and fleshed out my argument against the consistency of NDEs as you've presented it... These disagreements should be enough to chew on for the both of us I think.

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. You're saying it's not you, but it's you - at the very least it's confusing, and at most it's contradictory.

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

Concerning (1) and (1i), it has not been shown, and it's purely speculation that the filters that you propose would have a negative affect on these testimonials. While it's true that these testimonials would either benefit or not from such an analysis, it has not been demonstrated one way or the other.

Concerning (2) and (2i), There have been studies that show that NDEs do give accurate descriptions.
And those that have done the studies break down what's common to NDEs, as I have done, only using percentages. You give the example of the door, but as I've answered in a previous post, the door analogy is not complex enough, it doesn't have the complexity of normal veridical experiences. 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?

Concerning (3), this again is speculation, since a study of this sort has not been done (as far as I know). Thus, one is within his/her epistemic right to conclude that the testimonials are veridically accurate. Unless you know of a study that shows that your filters rule out the accuracy of the testimonials, then your conclusion is based on what might be the case. One can rule out any testimonial based on some possible study that might show that they are not accurate or veridical.

Concerning (4) and (4i), again this is pure speculation, there has been nothing to demonstrate this to be the case. The idea that the accuracy of the testimonials can be reduced to randomness demonstrates a lack of study of the testimonials. I point this out because I believe in an earlier post you did say that you hadn't actually studied NDEs - not just read about them, but actually studied the testimonials.

The door example, I already addressed above and in an earlier post.

Finally, (5) and (5i), again speculation.

I'm not saying it's not possible that these NDEs cannot be explained in other ways, or discounted by a careful statistical analysis. I'm saying that given my own studies, and the studies of others, there is no other explanation or study that has been done to negate these accounts.

For your argument to work you would have to show more evidence to support your conclusion.

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

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.

The door example although not as complex as general NDEs does have a correlation to NDEs in the sense that nearly 100% of those who have an NDE report not only being out of the body while the body is still functioning normally, but also being out of the body when the body is virtually shut down.

My contention is that based on the research of others, and based on my own research there is enough consistency in these testimonials, and there is enough specificity within the millions of accounts to warrant the conclusion my argument makes. The same reports are given over and over again, not just a few here and there, but many millions of accounts.

One doesn't have to do a statistical analysis to know the testimonials are consistent. Simply reading them will suffice. Knowledge here is not a matter of statistical analysis, or a matter of what science might or might not say. Anyone who takes the time and effort to read the accounts, and not dismissing them out-of-hand can see there is something extraordinary here.

I don't like using the term reincarnation because it carries a lot of religious baggage.

.
That’s what I’m trying to get at. What does that statement mean? What religious baggage does reincarnation carry?
.
Is it that, because you’re an Atheist, any subject, statement or word that comes from a religion is thereby ruled-out?
.
If suggestions or proposals have come to us from a millennia-old tradition, does that, for you, discredit them?
.

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?

.
There’s continuity of experience, and that’s all that’s needed.
.
But, if you’re talking about testimonial proof, then yes, of course that would require conscious memory of at least one past life. I claim that there can’t be, and isn’t, such evidence.
.
Another thing about past lives: I claim that, aside from being unprovable, they’re also completely indeterminate even in principle. As I’ve said, you’re in this life because there timelessly is this life-experience possibility-story about you. That doesn’t say anything about whether you were in a previous life or not.
.
Yes, among an infinity of life-experience possibility-stories, it’s (at least nearly) a certainty that there’s one that would lead to this life, in the reincarnation manner that I’ve described. But, saying that you’re in this life because there’s a life-experience possibility about you says nothing about that. This could just as well be your first life.
.
The following statement can’t be factual: “Either you had a past life, or you didn’t.”
.
That’s what I meant by “indeterminate even in principle”.
.
…but though this life can’t be said to be, or not be, your first life, it’s very, very unlikely your last life, if Hindu/Vedanta tradition is right (It sounds right). According to that tradition, it’s only a very few most advanced people who are life-completed and consequence-free enough to not have the vasanas that lead to a next life at the end of this one.
.

If there is no continuity of memory or experiences

.
There’s continuity of experience.
.

My belief based on NDEs, and what people have reported in more in depth NDEs, is that once we leave our bodies

.
But those NDE reports, necessarily, happen at an early stage at which resuscitation is possible.
.

our consciousness is expanded, that is, our memories and knowledge returns.

.
Yes. Nearly all NDE reports tell of an experience of many events of the life that has just transpired.
.
As you know, people report that their life is being played back for them.
.

It's very similar to waking from a dream state, which is a lower state of consciousness.

.
Quite possibly.
.

Many people have reported that their memories return

.
Memories of the life from which they’re currently dying, yes.
.

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

.
That wasn’t in any of the NDE reports that I’ve read, or read of.
.
If those were a relatively-few atpical NDE reports, then, when they say things are that aren’t supported by most NDE reports, and without some metaphysical support, then they have probative power.
.
But yes, there’s still something to what you say. I feel that part of what makes there be a life-experience possibility about and for you is that you wanted a life in the sense of being life-inclined, at least subconsciously and emotionally. I mean, maybe there are only life-experience stories for/about such protagonists. So yes, people might realize that, during the NDE, and that could maybe even be called a “memory” of wanting a life—even if maybe not a memory in the usual sense of the word.
.

People have reported seeing people getting ready to be born, i.e., waiting for a body to enter.

.
I haven’t encountered any NDE reports like that. As I was saying, the atypical reports that don’t have good metaphysical support and explanation, must be viewed with much skepticism.
.
But I’m being unfair again. I interpreted that as people standing in line, waiting for a birth in the supposed one objectively existent and real world, as portrayed in various movies.
.
The metaphysically-implied reincarnation isn’t to a body that you wait for to be born in the objectively existent and real world. The next world is a hypothetical possibility-world, and it’s already there for you, just for you, as the setting of a life-experience possibility-story that’s for and about you.
.
But it’s not implausible that people at the NDE-reported “way-station”, likely the same thing described in the East as a temporary Heaven or Hell, might be interested in moving on to a material life. (Remember that nearly all of the NDE reports are about a time immediately after death.)
.

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

.
Yes, because the NDE reports are about a time immediately after the beginning of death, a time at which (necessarily) resuscitation is possible.
.
That doesn’t mean that your memory and knowledge of this life is still retained when unconsciousness arrives, and there’s no waking consciousness.
.

, just as when you're in a dream your memories and knowledge are diminished, but when you wake up it all returns.

.
Memories and knowledge regarding your recently-ended life remain at the time of the NDE it because it’s only a short time into death.

.
Thus the essence of who you are remains intact

.
Of course, there’s continuity of experience.
.,

There is also plenty of testimonial evidence that our identities remain intact.

.
Yes, identity isn’t lost in reincarnation, though, of course, particular identity as a particular person doesn’t remain, though certain subconscious attributes remain.
.

When we die we return to our true selves, just as we do when we wake from a dream.

.
Yes, at the time of the NDE, we’ve moved away from much of the particularity of this life, and our experience has more generality.
.

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.

.
Yes, at that time, you’ve gone the way that they went.
.
As for free-will, if a person has to answer “Yes” or “No”, I’d say “No”. Our choices and decisions (even as perceived from our own point-of-view) are based on 1) Our pre-existing preferences (acquired and inherited ones); and 2) The circumstances of the situation.
.
Vedanta agrees with me on that.

.

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.

.
I try to keep speculation out of metaphysics. That’s why I call my metaphysics Skepticism. What we perceive is that each of us is a separate individual, each in our own life-situation. An attitude of skepticism doesn’t permit speculation otherwise.
.
But I spoke earlier, in this or another thread, about how, at the end of lives, our experience becomes the same. And that’s Timeless, whereas our lives (however many thousands there we might each have) are temporary, and it’s said that the whole overall lives-experience is temporary. …something that I’d have no way of knowing about.
.

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.

.
That sounds close to being a statement of Non-Realism.
.
I agree that the experiencer and hir (his/her) experience are what’s primary.
.
I don’t say that you “create or created” your world, but you’re obviously the primary, central and essential component of your life-experience possibility-story. It’s a life-experience story only because it has a protagonist, and your life-experience possibility-story’s protagonist is you.
.

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.

.
Sure, and time and distance are illusory in the sense that they’re attributes of this universe, which is metaphysically secondary and posterior to you, as the setting for your life-experience possibility-story, which is for and about you.
.

Moreover, if this is true then we can enter into any reality we like, this is just one reality among many.

.
Yes, it is. One among infinitely-many possibility-worlds and life-experience possibility-stories.
.
There’s something right about what you say. This metaphysics implies an openness, looseness, and lightness.
.
That sounds like what you’re expressing.
.
But we don’t consciously choose our next world, or even whether or not we have a next life. As I said, it’s traditionally said, and I agree that it makes sense, that, for nearly all of us, there will be a next life, and it isn’t a matter of choice, because it’s all we’re ready for, and we don’t know any better.
.
And, if you claim that we can choose the world we’re born into, then explain why you chose to be born in this world—the Land of the Lost.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I don't think that we'll make much more progress since we're at the stage of saying the other person has not answered previous points. I presented the previous arguments I made as if I had demonstrated them, I believe they're conclusive - but of course I could be wrong. This impasse is unfortunate

I'll address:

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?

though.

I took some drugs once and had a trip. I saw Mario jump out of the closet in my room. I didn't for one second believe Mario was there. There's definitely the possibility for non-equivalence between the content of the experience and what things in the environment generated it (specifically for me it was the drug, not a hidden Mario in the closet). I take descriptions of NDEs as accurate descriptions of what the people experienced (a truism), but not necessarily in accord with what actually happened. Without actually going through all the papers (an exercise I believe unlikely to provide sufficient evidence that consciousness leaves the body). The filters I described are examples of standard procedures to remove confounding variables to allow for causal claims to be made. Just generating an accurate statement (after filter application) still isn't sufficient to show that NDE experiences peer beyond the veil.

I suppose I'll leave it at that.

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

I don't think so. ...unless you mean very short-term memory, from one subjective moment to the next. I don't deny that there's that latter very short-term memory, even in unconsciousness. But continuity of experience doesn't require memory of the life that has ended before you entered unconsciousness.

A mathematical function y(x) is said to be continuous if at any point x, the limit of y as x is approached from below exists and is equal to the limit of y as x is approached from above. In other words, there are no gaps or discontinuities in the the function y(x). But no one says that the function is continuous only if the y value for some x-value x1 is adjacent to the y value of some arbitrary other x-value value, x2.

In other words, for a mathematical function y(x), continuity is defined only at a point. It doesn't say that the function values for all x values must be adjacent to eachother.

Likewise, continuity of experience during unconsciousness (no waking-consciousness) doesn't require that you remember the life you were in before you went unconscious.

You're saying it's not you, but it's you - at the very least it's confusing, and at most it's contradictory.

It is you.

But who says that you being you has to mean that you remember the life that you were in before you went unconscious?

Michael Ossipoff

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

But what does that mean?

NDE is an abbreviation for Near-Death Experience. The reports are, by definition, reports of experiences. As you said, that's a truism.

Then what else do you want them to be? What do you want to have "actually happened"., in order for the NDEs to be valid?

There are metaphysicses, Non-Realisms, such as mine, that describe "what metaphysically is" in terms of the individual's experience, and treat experience as metaphysically primary. Whatever you might know about the physical world comes to you only via your experience.

Obviously, we all agree that life and life-experience are consistent with, in correspondence with, and can be described as and correlated with the body and its events..

I often refer to that "correspondence-principle".

What else would you expect of experience?

It isn't necessary to claim that the NDEs are of some origin unrelated to the body. All of our experiences
are experienced as the body. You're the body. Who says that experiences, to be valid, must be unrelated to the body?

Michael Ossipoff

As for the objective reality of NDEs and their contents--

I should add that I don't believe that our physical world is objectively real anyway.

...because I regard it as a complex hypothetical system of inter-referring inevitable abstract logical if-then facts about hypotheticals.

...real and existent only in is own local inter-referring context.

How would a conclusion in this instance benefit you. Sure there is much evidence to support a theory that consciousness survives the body but there would certainly be many questions which could not be answered which would/should make one hesitate in making any conclusion especially if making a conclusion was not necessary.
Even with everything we know about body and mind today without actually crossing the threshold of life and death this is question that could not be answered conclusively.
I do tend to believe that there is a continuation of our consciousness as I believe there are many things in this world that our society tend to reject regardless of the abundance of evidence. All these thing with all their evidence can not however be undoubtedly proven.
As stupid as it sounds I still ponder these thing continuously but this has never been a fruitful exercise. (I will certainly continue to ponder aswell)
Debating this or trying to convince someone this without more than a blurry picture and idea and with no means of obtaining indisputable evidence is questionable.
Certainly explore and ponder, it would be foolish to ignore what's happening around you but again I don't believe you can possibly find an answer.

I would enjoy little more than you proving me wrong though.

Maybe this will move the discussion on a bit, @Sam26, @Michael Ossipoff

I thought of a way to better describe the scenario which would lead to an NDEs content being accurate by chance rather than through a perceptual event.

Say a person is undergoing heart surgery and their heart stops. They have an NDE which they identify as beginning when their heart stops, and the report contains numerous accurate things - stuff that matches either a video record or doctors' memories. The NDE could just as well be a simulation of heart surgery viewed from an exterior vantage point rather than the surgery viewed from the same vantage point. It is likely that a simulated version contains some things which match the real thing - through common knowledge, stereotypes and other statistical regularities, but none of which occur due to a perceptual event.

In order to establish NDEs as veridical, it needs to be shown that the accurate parts of NDE testimony content are as the result of a perceptual event of their environment rather than of a simulation. Having an NDE which satisfies the above filters for non-confounding removes various arguments against the veridicality of that NDE (accuracy due to priming/confounding/contextual effects rather than a perceptual event during the NDE), having an NDE which produces many true statements and no or very few false statements about the surrounding environment that satisfies the filters would be good evidence that the NDE consisted of genuine perceptual events. However, we can still expect some 'very accurate simulations' - but we expect them rarely purely by chance.

That there are few NDEs that do not satisfy the filtering conditions is evidence - though not especially strong evidence - against the veridicality of the NDEs. Having few NDEs that match the filtering conditions means there is little evidence (purely combinatorially) that supports NDEs having veridical content.

I would like to see an uncannily accurate NDE transcript and the validation procedure, if you could provide me one? The kind of thing that makes you think 'hot diggity, there's really something to this, they're really experiencing genuine events despite being unconscious!'.

I'm not sure of my train of thought is what you're after Sam. Fdrake seems to be thinking along the lines you're looking for.

I suppose I'm working from the common sense notion that all examples of disembodied consciousness have one thing in common; consciousness.

Now I do not think that that commonality consists purely of the fact that we call things "consciousness", contrary to popular Wittgensteinian 'game' talk. The difference, of course, is that we decide what counts as a game, and we cannot get it wrong, whereas if consciousness is something that we become aware of, we can get it wrong. That basically underwrites the earlier post...