If you read the exchange between Fdrake and myself you'll get more of the answers to these questions. Fdrake came up with the best counter-argument, although I don't think it does the job of refuting the points I have made. If after you have read my responses to Fdrake you still have questions, I'll try to answer them. I just don't want to spend hours responding to questions that I've already answered.

Thanks,
Sam

None of us here have died (and remember it). — Michael Ossipoff

But that doesn't equal that there is. It just points out that there's no one able to witness it. However, if you use all the data, research and do an inductive argument with Occam's razor in mind, the conclusion is that it's most probable that there isn't anything after death. Everything therefore points to claims of an afterlife to be false. If we are to compare probabilities, there's little to support an inductive argument for the existence of an afterlife or consciousness existing after death. It's important to not get biased to the want and need of an afterlife and instead look at it with cold precision.

Of course you never experience the time when your body has completely shut-down. Only your survivors do.
. — Michael Ossipoff

But that is not sufficient as evidence for ay afterlife or surviving consciousness. Many of the survivors experiences can be explained through how the neurons work. Just focusing on the descriptions of survivors is extremely insufficient as evidence of anything.

You’re taking a Literalist interpretation, when you speak of whether or not you’re still there at the time when, from the point of view of your survivors, you’re gone. — Michael Ossipoff

I only speak of that which I can rationally explain through existing evidence and logic reasoning. Anything else is delusions and fantasy. If we are to prove there's something after death or a continuation of out consciousness, we need more than just survivors description of their experiences. As I pointed out with my analogy about being drunk, there are biological functions that create similar experiences between humans because we consist of essentially the same functions. Therefore, the similarities between survivors experiences cannot be used as evidence for the existence of consciousness after death, since the similarities of these experiences may just be the consequence of what the brain does when it shuts down, how the neurons fire at that moment. Just like people recall that in the event of an accident, time seem to slow down, the subjective perception can create wild experiences under the right conditions. So the experiences by survivors of near death experiences are more likely to be the product of such processes in our brain. Attaching them to some supernatural explanation does not have any solid ground as an argument, since it assumes the premise is correct before the conclusion.

Of course,

As I’ve pointed out in other threads, there’s no such thing as “oblivion”. You never arrive at or experience a time when you aren’t.
.
You’d agree that death is sleep, and that that sleep becomes deeper and deeper. …but with you never reaching a time when you aren’t. …though you become quite unconscious, in the sense that there isn’t waking-consciousness. — Michael Ossipoff

Of course you never experience oblivion and you don't, when you are dead, you are dead. I do not agree that death is sleep, when you are dead, your body is just dead meat, getting consumed by the bacteria that you lived in symbios with before. It's nothing more than what happens when you shut down the computer, with the added effect that this "computer" starts to decompose and starts breaking down the inner functions so that turning it on again is impossible. You wouldn't say that a computer is still "experiencing input" or anything when it's shut off, so why would we humans? To argue that we humans and our consciousness is more special than anything else in this universe is a bit arrogant by our species. Our brain and body, our mind works just as anything else, which means that there's nothing when we die, everything is gone and after our neurons have decomposed all those moments are lost (like tears in rain).

The explanation for the experiences that survivors talk about can made through the example of the accident I mentioned, in which people say time slows down. If all neurons fires at once, our perception of time can be stretched and they might recall spending a long time with all of those experiences, when they in fact only experienced it at the short moment of time when the neurons fired off before the brain shut down. Much like with REM sleep, in which we can sense that a long time has past but the actual sleep time was just a few minutes. Our perception of time in our delusions are different than experiencing reality fully awake, but there's nothing to prove any supernatural about this.

When you die, the neurons most likely fires on all cylinders, putting you through a very unique experience, unlike anything you've ever experienced. Then the brain shuts down and you are gone. If the body can be revived in that moment, before the decomposing has started, it is sometimes possible to turn "this computer" on again. If that happens, the experience that can be recalled is the experience when all neurons fired on full cylinders and recalling it would indeed sound like a profound experience. However, the emotional impact of these experiences should not influence how we measure if these are supernatural or natural consequences of our dying brains.

What kind of instrument-readings were you expecting? :D …with instruments like in Ghostbusters?
.
From the point of view of the investigators, the animals that died are quite dead.
. — Michael Ossipoff

And so are the humans that they've measured at their moment of death. So far, there's no evidence of anything leaving the body, existing outside of the body or any sign of consciousness existing after the moment of death. We are no different from animals and suggesting this is a bit arrogant of us. We didn't evolve to supernatural beings that transcend into something else, we are meat and bones, biology and genes just as much as any other species on this planet. Our evolution just brought us a way to analyse our surroundings to survive better and the byproduct was intelligence. There's nothing that points to anything else.

Well, if someone is the kind of person who is expected to go to Hell, would he be hoping that there’s an afterlife? — Michael Ossipoff

I think that is kind of irrelevant since there's no proof of anything after death, so his choice of belief is irrelevant to proving anything about an afterlife.

In the East, there’s the expressed goal of an end to lives, a time when reincarnation isn’t needed and doesn’t happen. — Michael Ossipoff

Nirvana is exactly what happens after we die, there's nothing for us, we are gone. Anything else is desperation in face of this oblivion. It's a dark concept that there's nothing and that leads to people desperately trying to find comfort in other concepts. It's so intense that we make up fantasies about something else happening after we die, but nothing points to it and time and time again, it has been impossible to prove. In the East, they get the concept of Nirvana correct, but not the reincarnation part. It's better to view reincarnation or better yet, the eternal recurrence concept as a way of life, but when we die it's over.

At this forum, at least one poster has expressed that he doesn’t want there to be an afterlife or reincarnation.

So you’re greatly over-generalizing when you say that everyone is hoping for an afterlife. — Michael Ossipoff

Of course I'm generalizing, since it's impossible to account for every single persons will. There are those who want to swim naked in a pool of hot sauce, does that mean you can't propose that no one wants to bathe in hot sauce? It's semantics, the general idea is that most people wouldn't want things to just end, therefore, the concepts of an afterlife emerged throughout history.

You keep referring to the “Supernatural”. The Supernatural consists of contravention of physical law in scary movies about werewolves, vampires, murderous mummies, etc.
.
Usually it’s just the Materialists who speak of “The Supernatural” (contravention of physical law) and seem to want to attribute beliefs about that, to non-Materialists. — Michael Ossipoff

I consider religion to be supernatural belief. Afterlife and the continuation of the mind is derived from religious and spiritual concepts. Wild metaphysical philosophy is hard to argue with today since science has for the most part taken over it because of it's superior methods to reach proven results. Supernatural in this sense is what afterlife and mind after death is, since there's no evidence for it and concluding there to be such things without evidence or logic is more akin to the belief in ghosts, heaven etc. which is supernatural. Metaphysics should not stray from logic and rational reasoning, if so, it becomes fantasy and delusional that disregards facts.

A computer couldn’t care less if it gets turned off. — Michael Ossipoff

And a human couldn't care less when he's dead. And caring about dying or living proves nothing about an afterlife. The functions of the brain, mind and body resembles a computer in software and hardware, we are no special than the universe we live in. What we think about life and death does not change how life and death works. This is concepts that humans invented, not something that exists just because we say so.

What if there is no death? Only a disintegration?

But if the transphenomenality of consciousness was never created how could it end?

I don't think the more poignant point is whether there is or isn't life after death. If you accept the philosophical (later scientific) assertion that, 'energy (life) can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed', then the bottom line becomes there's life before birth and after death. The better question would be: "What kind of life is it?"
In earlier times, before 'science' became the by-word for everyone trying to explain reality, the weight of a person's theories were measured in how logical they were and not necessarily on proof. Science would like to refute that, but then I ask: "If science is okay with the postulate that 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed... ' does it mean it has tested all the energy in existence and therefore has undeniable proof of that? Literally, that's a resounding NO! So, then, perhaps the answer to 'life after death' is not in the proof we may or may not have, but in how logical it would be for the presence or absence of that life after death.

Personally, because of my psychedelic experiences with ego-death (yes someone attack me and tell me I am delusional!), I think that the idea of a separate consciousness is an illusion, albeit a very real one, and that there is no death of the type of being that would be able to experience or 'see': there is only a death of the personality, of the 'person.' There seems to be a foundation of everyone's being and I refuse to believe there is a beginning or an end to transphenomenal being. I think in death it disintegrates to reform into something else, and depending on the formation that manifests this transphenomenal soup, another separate identity forms.

But hey. Maybe I am delusional!

@Michael Ossipoff
Have you heard of ego-death in a psychedelic experience?

In principle, we share agreement on life after death. As to application, I think the theosophical explanation of reincarnation and evolution of life is better than the others.

I'm very reluctant to speak of a Godhead though.

'Godhead' is just a name. The principle is that of unity. Unfortunately, theosophy is limited to spiritual language, though the underlying principles are very universal.

I definitely do not trust the idea of a Creator or a deity. But that is because I have never heard a credible argument for one; an argument that cannot be shown to be fallacious.

The unity I refer to is LIFE. It is the principle underlying everything we mean by truth or reality. Theosophy is more a mixture of the various religious principles.

I read earlier of a 'will to life' written by a philosopher a couple hundred years ago. But I can't seem to remember what philosopher it was. It sounds interesting. I agree with you though.

But if the transphenomenality of consciousness was never created how could it end? — Blue Lux

What if there is no death? Only a disintegration? — Blue Lux

None of this has any foundation in science. The reason we get consciousness is a combination of pre-programmed genetics that form the starting point of a human and then the neurons grow through sensory input, experience, motor functions and so on. There's nothing before life and when we die, those neurons decompose like a computer hard drive corroding with rust that can't be read or written to. To suggest that consciousness exists on some other realm or state of the universe cannot be proved and have no foundation in philosophy if it can't be argued properly. If you have the hypothesis that consciousness exists somewhere else and that consciousness continues after death, you need to lay forth an argument in support of that. Just throwing out ideas is not philosophy, at least not from where I stand.

If you accept the philosophical (later scientific) assertion that, 'energy (life) can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed', then the bottom line becomes there's life before birth and after death. The better question would be: "What kind of life is it?" — BrianW

Energy is just energy, consciousness is not energy and energy is not "life" as you put it. You don't get another consciousness from other people when you feel the warm radiation from their bodies, do you? Heat is energy distribution. When we die, the energy that we've gotten from sun radiation, the food we ate, the stored fat in our bodies etc. slowly leaves us as heat radiation, electrons in our brain goes into this heat and then dissipates into lower states of energy that can't be felt as heat anymore. Entropy does it's thing, but the energy that leaves us is neither life or consciousness. Believing that is a radical misunderstanding of what energy is.

In earlier times, before 'science' became the by-word for everyone trying to explain reality, the weight of a person's theories were measured in how logical they were and not necessarily on proof. Science would like to refute that, but then I ask: "If science is okay with the postulate that 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed... ' does it mean it has tested all the energy in existence and therefore has undeniable proof of that? Literally, that's a resounding NO! So, then, perhaps the answer to 'life after death' is not in the proof we may or may not have, but in how logical it would be for the presence or absence of that life after death. — BrianW

I feel that you have a great misunderstanding of what science is or what the scientific method is. There's tons of research into the laws of thermodynamics. You are arguing against this science without any logical reasoning and no insight into how it actually works. A scientific theory means that it's proven, if it weren't proven you wouldn't be able to write on the computer you do now, since the whole reason we have technology as we do, is because we have used these theories to create such technologies. Science have proven what you argue it hasn't. If you don't understand the science, it doesn't mean it isn't a proven theory or doesn't exist. Your misunderstanding of what energy is, that through science that has been proven, and the result is a lot of the technologies you use in the modern world, then argue that the science is wrong. What you are doing is the begging the question fallacy and the assumed premises also assumes that the science is wrong, which it isn't.

I refuse to believe there is a beginning or an end to transphenomenal being. I think in death it disintegrates to reform into something else, and depending on the formation that manifests this transphenomenal soup, another separate identity forms. — Blue Lux

Your belief is your own, however, if we are doing serious philosophy on the subject, it demands more. Even the religious monks like St. Aquinas needed to try and create a logical reasoning behind their argument for God. Just throwing out ideas is not philosophy, subjective experience is not philosophy. It's a starting point, but it needs a correct argument, otherwise it's impossible to have a philosophical dialectic, since it's just opinions. If you have a hypothesis, you need to support it with solid premises that are true and not assumed true.

I think the theosophical explanation of reincarnation and evolution of life is better than the others. — BrianW

But without logical reasoning and with fallacies in reasoning it's just religious belief.

The unity I refer to is LIFE. It is the principle underlying everything we mean by truth or reality. Theosophy is more a mixture of the various religious principles. — BrianW

You still need a solid argument, otherwise it's just religious belief, spirituality, fantasy and so on. Philosophy requires serious thought, not just subjective belief and that's the end of it. I think the scientific method is also a very good way of thinking, meaning; you don't try and prove your idea, you try and disprove it, by any means necessary. If you cannot disprove your idea, however much you try and however someone else tries to do it, it then becomes proven, rational and logic in it's form.

Yes, everybody knows that corpses decay.

You seem to miss the meaning I'm trying to convey. If everything is energy, then life and consciousness would also fall in that category. If you don't appreciate the names, fill the blanks with what you may. Also, thermodynamics does not prove that 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed'. If it can, show me.

As to 'life after death', there is no definitive proof of what happens or doesn't happen but there is a logical argument that life (or the energy configuration commonly referred by that name) could not only be defined by the limits of the vibrations we interact with. I'm saying it is illogical to presume that life is limited within the rates of vibration of osmium (the densest solid - just googled it) and gamma rays (the highest frequency known yet). It is very logical to suppose lower and higher vibrations exist and in relation to lives like ours just as we now know there are gamma waves in the brain. And it may be that 'life after death' is just an energy relationship which we have not yet discovered.

Science is not supposed to claim that what it knows is everything to know. Life after death is about possibilities not definitives.

I think the scientific method is also a very good way of thinking, meaning; you don't try and prove your idea, you try and disprove it, by any means necessary. If you cannot disprove your idea, however much you try and however someone else tries to do it, it then becomes proven, rational and logic in it's form. — Christoffer

What you're referring to is not the scientific method. I think you're the one who's got things twisted. Are you implying Newton worked to disprove gravity?

Once a principle is proved, it can never be disproved. As to the inability to disprove something, it is just that - inability. It does not become proof of anything.

If everything is energy, then life and consciousness would also fall in that category. — BrianW

This statement is a still a fallacy. Energy and matter is what makes up the physical universe, life and consciousness are not energy, they are product of matter and energy, something that evolved from it and they are driven by it, but they aren't it themselves. You are making a general premiss seem connected to a very specific conclusion, which it isn't. Just because life is fueled by energy, doesn't mean life is energy and therefor life exists after death. The energy that is left after death is just thermal heat, there's nothing conscious or living about it. This misunderstanding of what energy is cannot be a premiss for the conclusion, because it's a misunderstanding of what energy is.

It's like saying; "If the sky is blue, and my shirt is blue, then my shirt is also the sky", it's a fallacy.

Also, thermodynamics does not prove that 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed'. If it can, show me. — BrianW

And energy isn't living or is conscious so this doesn't support the conclusion that any life or consciousness exist after death. You use this misunderstanding of energy and thermodynamics as a premise for your conclusion I'm afraid.

As to 'life after death', there is no definitive proof of what happens or doesn't happen but there is a logical argument that life (or the energy configuration commonly referred by that name) could not only be defined by the limits of the vibrations we interact with. — BrianW

This is in no way a logical statement. You are assuming premisses to support the conclusion. The most logical inductive conclusion, based on actual science of thermodynamics, energy, matter and biology clearly points to there being no life after death or consciousness existing after death. You can't assume to be right in order to be right, it's like using the bible to try and prove that the bible is true.

I'm saying it is illogical to presume that life is limited within the rates of vibration of osmium (the densest solid - just googled it) and gamma rays (the highest frequency known yet). It is very logical to suppose lower and higher vibrations exist and in relation to lives like ours just as we now know there are gamma waves in the brain. And it may be that 'life after death' is just an energy relationship which we have not yet discovered. — BrianW

You are making up correlations and conclusions based on premises you either assume correct or invent to fit the narrative. There's nothing in this that has any basis in science at all and cannot be used to make anything logical whatsoever. You can't just link different matter with different forms of radiation, connect this to how our brain works and reach a conclusion that you call logical. In what way is this a rational argument?

Science is not supposed to claim that what it knows is everything to know. Life after death is about possibilities not definitives. — BrianW

Science is science, it's a method to reach a conclusion that is based in evidence. Everything else is belief and while it's fine to believe, it cannot ever be used to prove or disprove anything. This topic isn't about spiritual ideas, it's a philosophical dialectic about the existens of life after death or consciousness after death. In this regard, it's irrelevant what people believe, what cannot be proven isn't logical or correct. The most logical and reasonable conclusion is the one that follows what facts that actually exist.

If you don't understand the facts, if you don't know what energy, matter and how the brain works, you can't make a conclusion based on premisses roted in that misunderstanding. That equals an error in the argument.

What you're referring to is not the scientific method. I think you're the one who's got things twisted. Are you implying Newton worked to disprove gravity? — BrianW

Newtons discoveries were not made according to modern methods of scientific research. The methods of science have evolved for over 500 years. Have you have heard of Karl Popper? This is the scientific method derived from his epistemology and in any form of dialectic this should be the primary method in order to not get biased towards a certain assumed conclusion.

Once a principle is proved, it can never be disproved. As to the inability to disprove something, it is just that - inability. It does not become proof of anything. — BrianW

What are you talking about? You have a hypothesis, you use Karl Poppers method of trying to disprove it and from that derive a conclusion that has been put through what he proposed as the process of falsification. It's standard practice in many areas of science, especially theoretical ones, in which you are limited in physical testing.

----

Belief and subjective ideas without any support in science cannot ever prove things like life after death or consciousness existing after death. Any claim that it can is a fallacy and in my opinion it's not philosophy anymore because it's impossible to have a proper dialectic if the arguments aren't properly formed or backed up. Assuming the premise correct in order to reach a true conclusion is a basic fallacy and impossible to argue against since there's nothing to argue against. If your conclusions are based on false premisses, then any attempt for me to counter this argument forces me to assume you are correct, when you haven't proven anything to be correct.

If you want to argue for life after death and consciousness after death you need a proper argument, with true premisses, everything else is irrelevant. Subjective belief and opinion isn't philosophy when it comes to modern metaphysics.

First, everything is energy, whether tangible or intangible (or an activity). Therefore, you need to check your definition.

Second, you need to google 'the scientific method'.

Third, just because consciousness doesn't fit your profile of science doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Does the mind exist? Does the psyche exist? Then, in the same way that a relationship between the brain and mind or brain and psyche exists, so we have the analogy between life and consciousness. If everything was 'physical', do you think doctors wouldn't have dissected the brain and found the mind and psyche? It's why this discussion belongs in metaphysics or spiritual or religious philosophy. Else, we would be talking about the physical.

Lastly, if your 'scientific method' is based on Karl Popper's method of falsification, then, it is deficient because all it does is find flaws. If it doesn't find any, then it approves. What if you can't falsify a statement, does that prove that it's right or that you are unable to?
The scientific method existed before Karl Popper and while his falsification method, points to the obvious, it does not add any conditioning (which wasn't known before) to the process. All it does is caution people not to be too quick to judge without as much consideration as possible, a proposition which I'm deflecting back to you.

I'm looking into consciousness the same way I would look into mind or psyche. If you can't, don't blame it on being un-scientific.

First, everything is energy, whether tangible or intangible (or an activity). Therefore, you need to check your definition. — BrianW

There's nothing wrong with my definitions. You assume energy in terms of a spiritual definition. Find me any evidence that suggest that consciousness and life is energy, other than in homeopathy, spirituality, new age and other forms of fantasy. Energy is nothing so exotic and complex as a consciousness. Matter and energy makes up the universe, so in that sense everything is energy or matter, but when you assert energy to be life and be consciousness, you are creating a definition of energy that isn't there, i.e you are assuming your premisses to be correct in order to support your conclusion, i.e a basic fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Second, you need to google 'the scientific method'. — BrianW

No, you should do this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Karl Popper advised scientists to try to falsify hypotheses, i.e., to search for and test those experiments that seem most doubtful. Large numbers of successful confirmations are not convincing if they arise from experiments that avoid risk.

----

Third, just because consciousness doesn't fit your profile of science doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Does the mind exist? — BrianW

Stop doing straw man fallacies. No where did I say that consciousness doesn't exist or that the mind doesn't exist. But you seem unable to listen to logic here. As I described, the consciousness and the mind of a person exists because of the neurons, and the formation of neurons are the basis for the consciousness we have. This is the current scientific theory of the consciousness. There is no evidence for consciousness existing outside of the parameters of our biology and there's no evidence to suggest that our consciousness continue on after we die and our neurons shut down. If you want to dispute this and argue for this being able to happen, you have to put forth an argument that actually makes logical sense through proper argumentation. And stop making straw mans.

If everything was 'physical', do you think doctors wouldn't have dissected the brain and found the mind and psyche? — BrianW

They have, it's called the brain and neurons. What scientists still research is how everything works, but there are few who believe in some mystic idea about how the consciousness work.

It's why this discussion belongs in metaphysics or spiritual or religious philosophy. Else, we would be talking about the physical. — BrianW

Metaphysics have been generally replaced by science over the course of the last hundred years. There are few serious philosophers who argue metaphysics outside of the facts provided by science. As for spiritual and religious philosophy I do not count those as philosophy, since they dismiss logic and rational reasoning in their argumentations. Religion/spirituality is religion/spirituality, not philosophy. If you are to reason in a philosophical manner, you need to keep your arguments correct and avoid fallacies, otherwise you aren't practicing philosophy. And calling something religious philosophy is just another name for "I want to argue without having proper facts or logic to back it up". Religious beliefs is irrelevant for a philosophical dialectic, even the old christian monks knew this and tried to focus on Aristotles way of reasoning, even though they were believers.

Problem today seem to be that too many just don't care to have logic or proper argumentation for their ideas, they just spew them out without caring to back them up. I call that sloppy to say the least.

All it does is caution people not to be too quick to judge without as much consideration as possible, a proposition which I'm deflecting back to you. — BrianW

No, it caution people not to be biased to their own conclusions, which was my point. If you turn what others say into your own interpretation to fit the narrative you are doing fallacies once again.

I'm looking into consciousness the same way I would look into mind or psyche. If you can't, don't blame it on being un-scientific. — BrianW

But you have no science and no facts to back up anything you say. What you think about it, what you believe is totally irrelevant. You do not possess the truth just because you believe it is the truth, that is delusional.

Why can't you make a proper argument with facts and logic deduction/induction for this topic? You are just arguing against everything, making things up to fit your narrative. Without a proper arguments based in facts and proper deduction/induction you have nothing other than religious/spiritual belief and that isn't even close to enough to support your conclusions.

This isn't a theological forum, it's a philosophical one.

Energy and matter is what makes up the physical universe, life and consciousness are not energy, they are product of matter and energy, something that evolved from it and they are driven by it, but they aren't it themselves. — Christoffer

This is wrong because it does not keep with the law that states 'like begets like'. A product of matter and energy would be matter and energy.

As I described, the consciousness and the mind of a person exists because of the neurons, and the formation of neurons are the basis for the consciousness we have. This is the current scientific theory of the consciousness. — Christoffer

What you are stating is that consciousness and mind are limited to brain physiology. I'm saying there's physiology and psychology at work. One is physical and tangible, the other is metaphysical and intangible but both are manifest and interrelate in human activity. Is not psychology a science?

I repeat my point, there is no proof of persistence of consciousness after death or lack thereof. Considering the validity of the discussion is not a fallacy, it's part of the scientific process - questioning and considering the options.

Guys if you're going to continue this long discussion on consciousness you should start up a thread. This thread has to do with NDEs and whether they provide evidence of consciousness

Have you heard of ego-death in a psychedelic experience? — Blue Lux

Oh sure--I was in my '20s during the psychedelic mid-'60s.

The Tibetan Book of the Dead was popular then. I don't doubt that it might have some validity, but I don't claim to know about that.

Ii don't know what the experience of death will be like, and I don't know if the Tibetans knew either. But maybe they did.

That book speaks of a time when the person has a choice regarding whether to approach or avoid a next life. I don't believe that there's a choice. A person can strongly not want a next life, and they'll have one anyway if s/he isn't life-completed and lifestyle-perfected, ready and qualified for final rest.

Buddhism and Hinduism mostly seem to agree with that. Maybe the Book of the Dead was intended for people who are life-completed and life-style-perfected. But I don't know why such a person would have any need to make a choice in the matter. Nisargadatta said, in answer to a question, that his death wouldn't make the slightest difference for him.

Anyway, I don't claim to understand the Book of the Dead, or know how right it is.

I don't think that the use of psychedelics or other confusants (such as pot) helps, and I wouldn't recommend any of them.

When I was in my 20s, of there were a lot of songs on the radio that I--and surely most others--felt were drug-inspired songs. So I pretty much dismissed them at the time, except that sometimes they said something that I liked.

Well, I don't care how the songwriter arrived at his song, but some of those songs make a lot of sense.

For example:

"5D", by the Byrds

"The Rock and Roll Gypsies", by Hearts and Flowers

...to name a few.

That song by the Byrds has (especially at the end of the song) a lot of 12-string, with a strong bagpipe sound.

The "Rock and Roll Gypsies" has its rhythm played on an autoharp. What a distinctive instrument, with its loud, clangy, jangly sound.

(The 12-string has 6 pairs of strings instead of just 6 strings. Some of the pairs are, with respect to eachother, tuned to unison*, and some are tuned to octave. That's standard, if I remember correctly, but there are various other ways of relative-tuning the pairs (called "courses"), such as a 5th.)

* But of course it's never an exact unison, so there will be beats. Additionally, the 2 strings don't get plucked at exactly the same time, resulting in a phase-difference (as heard in echoing sounds, or when 2 radios are playing the same station, in different parts of the room) between their sounds.

(When you press a key on the autoharp, it damps all of the strings that aren't part of the chord that you're selecting. So, like a regular harp, with the autoharp you're only playing open, un-stopped strings.)

Both of those songs are at YouTube. Just google the title, followed by the artist, followed by "original studio version", followed by "YouTube". Of course those things are separated by commas.

Michael Ossipoff

It's fine, I have no intentions with continuing a philosophical argument with someone who can't provide a proper argument. As I said, this is a philosophical forum, not a theological or spiritual, arguments need to keep their premisses and conclusions as clean s possible. Even when they don't work, in a dialectic, the opposing side is meant to improve your own argument by challenging it. However that requires proper deductive and inductive reasoning. A total misunderstanding of science and how basic physics and biology work as the foundation for the conclusion leads no where and after pointing out all the problems over and over there's still no improvements. I'm new here so I believed this place to feature a bit higher level dialectics than other places online, but it seems there's people here as well who can't properly do philosophical discourse.

However, in my loooong posts I think I've laid forth the argument about NDEs and why there's little or even any evidence to suggest NDEs show that consciousness can continue after death or that life after death exists. My basic premisses for this revolved around first, how the neurons work and what likely happens when we die, i.e if all neurons show higher activity at the moment of death (proven by EEG tests on dying patients), the likely scenario is that the experiences function much like dreams with all engines burning. Since the perception of time is different in dreams than normally, experiences that in reality lasts for a few seconds before the neurons completely shut off, could feel like long lasting experiences. So time through these experiences cannot account for them having their consciousness exist during death, they would most likely remember it so, but do not have any input during the actual death part. Second, no evidence show that anything exists after a person has died, there's no brain activity and energy, which the previous guy misinterpret as some kind of spiritual life force, is just body heat dissipating from the body. There's nothing that shows anything else than the body shutting down, much like a computer shutting down, all the hardware failing and the software can't work without the hardware. Third, people have tendencies to hold what's comfortable closer to them than actual truth, so people are more biased towards something like spirituality or religion even when there's no evidence or anything to suggest it to be correct. This means people who generally are intelligent gets biased towards irrational belief and start putting together conclusions assuming their premisses to be true, when they aren't. In order to argue about NDEs properly, we need to look coldly at the facts and not use fantasy, belief, spirituality and religion as any foundation for it, if people can't do it, they will never reach a rational answer for this topic. Fourth, people can experience similar experiences if the same parameters are set in motion. This is also the foundation of the Multiple Discovery theory, i.e that if similar knowledge and experience exists for different people, they can come up with the same invention or discovery, since their line of thinking has the same pre-existing influences. In the case of NDEs, the similarities between accounts told by survivors would then basically be about people having similar experiences and therefor we see the same things when our neurons fire off at the moment of death. Studies have shown that NDE accounts differ between cultures and their culture's influence on the individuals, influence the experience during an NDE. This further points to the experience being the product of a dream like state at the moment of death. We dream about what exists in our life, if most of us live life in similar ways as everyone else, we have influences to these NDEs that are similar. Fifth, NDE accounts are rarely specific in detail, they are closer to describing a dream and when we try to remember something we have a hard time remembering, we fill in gaps. If someone saw a shadow figure, they might remember them as a relative, even though it was just a shadow. People do this all the time with real memories, but the abstract nature of dreams and NDE descriptions are far more likely to cause such distortions of what was actually experienced. Sixth, people tend to view intelligence as something other than natural evolutionary step, when nothing suggest otherwise. To view our intelligence as something spiritual or higher than nature is an arrogant egotistical viewpoint, i.e it's assuming that our consciousness is more special than anything in nature therefore we are higher than nature in that regard. Nothing points to this, our brains are no different from any other animal and when we die, we die just like other animals, so does everything we have in our brain, meaning the neurons making up our consciousness.

Conclusion for this is first that NDE experiences cannot prove anything about consciousness leaving the body, consciousness exiting the body and existing when the body and neurons are dead. It also cannot prove life after death or anything supernatural. It doesn't matter how many people gets interviewed, the data is flawed by the nature of what happens to these people and their inability to realize the physiological trauma the brain goes through. Therefor the only way to measure this is to invent something like an EEG that could register brainwaves in a room rather than just attached to the patients head. But that's a test made out of the premiss that our consciousness is higher than nature, which nothing points to.

I see no value in NDEs, since they are too subjectively flawed as experiences and there's nothing that can be used as facts for a proper scientific conclusion. If an argument cannot be presented without including spiritual new age, religious beliefs, lacking concept of what science is, misunderstandings of scientific facts or presented as pure fantasy statements, then it becomes a circular argument in which no one with that state of mind would reach any better understanding or conclusion. If you aren't able to change your view on the subject when going through a proper dialectic, and still continues to argue for something out of pure belief or subjective conviction, then you will go around in circles, being stuck in that belief.

If someone could present an argument for the validity of NDEs in the search for an answer to consciousness after death, that actually makes logical and reasonable sense, I will challenge my own argument, but so far I've only been met with ignorance to the premisses I've presented and a lack of understanding of what they actually mean or a lack of general understanding of basic science. I do not accept spirituality as part of metaphysic philosophy, not in 2018 when we have years of scientific research, facts and discoveries to inform us in our discourse.

No one has come out and claimed that without doubt 'consciousness does survive the body'. Therefore, I think it is unjust to dismiss such a premise with another hypothetical statement without giving actual proof or applying undeniable logic (based on actual principle and not subjective propositions however 'scientific' they may be clothed).

There is no doubt that this argument of 'consciousness surviving the body' is just a hypothesis. Using the scientific method implies subjecting it to a number of rigorous tests each marking a degree which, if it passes, takes it closer to being considered as truth. However, without the last step, that of experimental testing and the conclusive analysis and deductions from the results achieved therefrom, it can never conclusively be said to be fact. However, the scientific method does allow a hypothesis to satisfy certain parameters which make it a 'working hypothesis' while the rigour of the scientific method proceeds. The argument 'consciousness does not survive the body' or 'consciousness does not exist' is not an invalidating argument, since it is not based on actual observation, and is just as un-empirical as the premise, and therefore cannot be used to dismiss it.

To think that we may be wrong in principle and be right in application (details) is quite the paradox. I often make my arguments in principle because they are more objective than individual applications which are liable to be misinterpreted (tinged with personal bias) and attached to the wrong fundamental principles, often due to a lack of in-depth investigation or by being too quick to dismiss a premise without checking to offer the proper conclusion deduced from actual experimental testing and therefore would be immature for such a summation.

I have studied philosophy and I believe (subjectively) that I know what I'm about.

Finally, one person 'feels' strongly that 'consciousness survives the body'; another 'feels' just as strongly it doesn't, but none can show proof. Therefore, don't claim fact!

It's fine, I have no intentions with continuing a philosophical argument with someone who can't provide a proper argument. As I said, this is a philosophical forum, not a theological or spiritual, arguments need to keep their premisses and conclusions as clean s possible. Even when they don't work, in a dialectic, the opposing side is meant to improve your own argument by challenging it. However that requires proper deductive and inductive reasoning. A total misunderstanding of science and how basic physics and biology work as the foundation for the conclusion leads no where and after pointing out all the problems over and over there's still no improvements. I'm new here so I believed this place to feature a bit higher level dialectics than other places online, but it seems there's people here as well who can't properly do philosophical discourse. — Christoffer

You don't know what the hell you're talking about, the argument I gave on the first page of this thread is an INDUCTIVE argument.

No shit, it's a philosophical forum, I didn't know that. I don't mind responding to arguments, but I don't like having to repeat myself, especially when you come in here without reading a good part of the posts. If you're going to lecture someone about arguments, know what you're talking about. I know enough philosophy to know what an inductive argument is.

Besides you wouldn't know higher level philosophy if it jumped up and bit you on the ass.

Hey hey. Don't resort to that! And the same is for him!

Have a rational discussion! Get to the bottom of the differences!

"The meeting of two personalities is like a chemical reaction: if there is any reaction, both are changed." Carl Jung said something along the lines of this...

Clearly you two have had no real connection in discourse...

The first section (the one you quote) was about the previous poster, not you.
The later sections adressed NDEs, you clearly skipped that part and instead thought that everything revolves around you and your brilliance as a philosopher.

Previously in this thread I adressed your inductive arguments, which have a few problems. You never adressed those, so I now summarized every argument I had in that regard, I guess you couldn't handle it.

But now you continue with unnecessary ad hominems and hostility and for one that says you know how philosophy works, this hostile post just showed how you really don't know how to do it. So it's hard to take you seriously with that level of childish behaviour.

In a forum, everyone can chime in and discuss and I did that, adressing both your arguments and others. If you believe every post in here revolves around you, you don't know shit about how forums work. The previous pages of discussion evolved from the NDE discussion and you wanted to get back to NDEs which I did and you clearly didn't care to read.

Besides you wouldn't know higher level philosophy if it jumped up and bit you on the ass. — Sam26

Get off your high horse. Your arguments aren't solid, I adressed them many times and you didn't even care to counter-argue, which is the point of a dialectic and not to act like a spoiled child.

But I guess what you just wrote is the level of philosophical debate you are after so I will leave you with your childish behaviour. Pathetic.

Very Interesting.

Have you heard of DMT? Especially endogenous DMT?

Psilocin in magic mushrooms is 4-HO-DMT

Have you heard of DMT? Especially endogenous DMT?

Psilocin in magic mushrooms is 4-HO-DMT — Blue Lux

I've heard of it, but I don't recommend psychedelics, pot, opioids, barbituates, benzodiazepines, cocaine, amphetamines, alcohol, or tobacco.

I favor discarding the drug-laws, because what someone does to themselves is entirely their own business, and drug enforcement is bankrupting public budgets. But I don't recommend drugs..

Michael Ossipoff