That wouldn't be a problem in my opinion. NDE, if it turns out that there are such things as souls, is relevant to metaphysics, ontology, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of mind.

How do I get a NDE thread onto the main page? I'm not sure if it's considered a philosophical area. — The Opposite

By writing a good opening post. The topic can be approached philosophically, but even purely psychological, neurological, or anthropological approaches are fine too. I'd be less sympathetic to a discussion in which people actually took these studies to be evidence of an afterlife.

I'd be less sympathetic to a discussion in which people actually took these studies to be evidence of an afterlife. — jamalrob

Would you be averse to people taking these studies to not be evidence of an afterlife?

Well, Sam put a good deal of work into his posts, and he actually made philosophical points, not just jee-whiz, isn't it special. He was a crackpot and his arguments were crap, but that's for others to decide.

Well that's the grown-up assumption as far as I'm concerned. That debate is silly, in my opinion, but that doesn't mean I'll delete or move such a discussion. Sam's discussion was along those lines but as I recall it wasn't put in the Lounge, despite being crackpottery.

if it turns out that there are such things as souls — TheMadFool

Does it necessarily have to be about souls?

I'd be less sympathetic to a discussion in which people actually took these studies to be evidence of an afterlife. — jamalrob

Why?

Let's say there is a continent called SomewhereLand which many have traveled to, but none have returned from, equaling a state of pure ignorance for those who have not yet made that trip. Upon what basis should we exclude any speculation about SomewhereLand? How does one evaluate such speculation based on exactly no information?

All speculation on any topic with no information could be excluded, that would be intellectually consistent. But then we have to say goodbye to all God and anti-God threads too, and probably a long list of other topics as well. As example, science could continue for many thousands of more years at an ever accelerating pace. If true, that means we currently know close to nothing in comparison to what can be known. So stop talking?

A related issue to NDE is the drug DMT, which reportedly takes some users through a death like experience. Not saying this proves anything, but I don't see the case for dismissing it out of hand. If we were to dismiss all drug driven experiences then we'd be required to include caffeine too, and there goes the entire forum down the drain.

ok

Let's say there is a continent called SomewhereLand which many have traveled to, but none have returned from — Hippyhead

Then how do we know many have travelled to it?

Upon what basis should we exclude any speculation about SomewhereLand? — Hippyhead

That we have absolutely no information on which to base speculation - "I think it's made entirely of pink blancmange", "Really? I think it's the intestines of giant space alien" ... What a fascinating conversation.

Then how do we know many have travelled to it? — Isaac

Good point, we know only they have left the realm we know. And we don't even really know that.

That we have absolutely no information on which to base speculation - "I think it's made entirely of pink blancmange", "Really? I think it's the intestines of giant space alien" ... What a fascinating conversation. — Isaac

Imho, it can easily be a fascinating conversation, just never a conclusive one. As example, many DMT users report what they feel to be death like experiences, which they are then able to return from and report on. Conclusive? Surely not. Interesting? Sure, why not?

I would agree that anyone on any side who adamantly claims to have certain knowledge can quickly become tiresome.

This does not look promising, The Opposite.

This does not look promising, The Opposite — jamalrob

Really and truly no kidding not trying to start a war with management, but how about this?

Instead of the mods standing back and passing judgement on everyone else's posts, instead of saying this is no good and that is no good....

How about a mods only section where the mods model the kind of writing and behavior which represent their goals for the forum?

Yes, this would put pressure on the mods to deliver above average content. But that is what is required if the mods are to have credibility when they pass judgement on the content of others.

This again? Time to move on, HH. Work on improving your own posts.

This again? Time to move on, HH. Work on improving your own posts — jamalrob

Should I use yours above as my example template? Brief, dismissive, dodgy, devoid of actual content or reasoning?

Please take another look at my posts in the thread above, and yours too. While my points are obviously entirely debatable, the effort invested far exceeds that which you have shared with us.

Physician, heal thyself.

I'm definitely not mad at anyone, just weary of being lectured by those who can't keep up, or won't bother to keep up, and then proclaim themselves leaders. Sorry, el-bunko.

What's the alternative?

I think that a near death experiences
is a very good idea because it is clear topic for debate, central to the whole mind and body problem, but it needs to be written as a clear philosophical question, specifying the core issues and scope of the topic. I would even like to have a go at posing it in such a way but at the moment the question seems to be more about whether it would go on the front page because someone wrote one in the past.

I don't want to chip in at this point but would like to see you spell out a question more clearly. I would love to do it but firstly, I feel you might feel I am stealing your topic but I do have a strong and genuine interest in this area of philosophy.

Would it be possible for us to agree that NDE experiences don't prove anything one way or another? If yes, that might a basis upon which a conversation which doesn't just repeat past threads might be possible.

Maybe this is stretching the topic too far, but there are all kinds of related experiences which can be examined. Just being a senior citizen is kind of a "near death experience" in that it becomes increasingly difficult to remain in the safe little bubble of delusional denial. I know we have some members who are over 80, so perhaps they could speak to this.

As another example, me butting heads with mods could also perhaps be described as a near death experience. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happens in a real NDE experience. There's the tunnel, and the light, and when you get to end of the tunnel, WHAMMO!, Saint Peter bans your ass!!! Or, if you've not really been all that bad, you are confined to Lounge purgatory until you see the error of your ways. Oh dear, this is the kind of post that can happen if you were raised Catholic...

so needy :monkey:

go watch a Kubrick film so you feel like somebody

:kiss:

you took the insult as a compliment. You could become invulnerable!

you took the insult as a compliment. — The Opposite

The greatest strategy never invented. I bequeath to you, my dear lord :brow:

a better strat is to not be attached to the image of your self, pace Krishnamurti

I really was hoping that you were going to write a serious discussion on the philosophy near death experiences, so I might be tempted to do so because I do think it has a lot of scope.

I saw Hippyhead' s point and I think he has worthy points but am inclined to think they are more metaphorical than a serious consideration of the distinct altered states of consciousness associated with clinical death.

So, at the moment I am rather disappointed that the main page discussion of near death experiences is failing to offer what its title promised.

So, at the moment I am rather disappointed that the main page discussion of near death experiences is failing to offer what its title promised. — Jack Cummins

Not making any demands here, but it might be interesting if in some limited number of cases the original poster had mod control over the thread they started, making one person responsible for whatever happens.

To some extent I see what you are saying. That is why I am waiting to see what happens. The only problem is that the originator of the thread, as far as I see never actually put forward any philosophy propositions and the last couple of comments he made were like mere text banter and nothing more.

I would put forward ideas about the philosophers of near death experiences but think any serious discussion would be lost amidst pointless banter.

I believe that rather than be given an overriding power to moderate the originator of the thread should be given respect. That is why I will not write my own thread at this stage because I wish to wait and allow him to respond and write an actual philosophical argument, because at the moment no actual philosophcal propositions or arguments as such has been put forward so far.

If I do begin my own thread I will try and frame it slightly differently but as a philosophy question and I realise that others may wish mine to be demoted to purgatory and his to reign supreme on the front page.

Weighing in on this as a poster, and not as a mod, I'm curious as to what is the philosophical import of NDEs and what question you're attempting to answer by exploring NDE evidence. Some possibilities are:

1. Epistemological questions: Do those who accept NDEs as evidence of life after death have a valid epistemological basis? That is, have I used the same criteria to conclude the existence of life after death as I do the existence of other events in the world? If I haven't, then is that good enough reason to reject that NDEs prove the existence of life after death?

2. Metaphysical questions: Are NDEs scientifically explainable phenomenon? If they are, then why are we discussing an interesting, yet philosophically irrelevant, medical phenomenon in a philosophy forum? If NDEs are not a scientifically explainable phenomenon,, then what is their import? Does the existence of NDEs implicate there being disembodied souls that exist post-death and therefore possibly provide empirical evidence for Cartesian minds or general support for substance dualism?

It just seems like somehow you've got to tie this interesting phenomenon back into a philosophical question, and unless you can do that, you might as well be asking questions about any unusual medical condition.

As to the epistemological question, the below is a professional philosopher's take, not as it relates specifically to NDEs, but as to reincarnation. The question is the same though, and that is whether the physical evidence we've gathered offers sufficient basis for the conclusion of life after death. This professor thinks so. I don't find him overly convincing, but he at least sets up a philosophical question.

I would put forward ideas about the philosophers of near death experiences but think any serious discussion would be lost amidst pointless banter. — Jack Cummins

I hear ya brother. One solution is a blog, a site where you control the conversation. But then you'd have to build your own audience from scratch, kind of a lot of work. In that case you'd probably wind up spending hours crafting an intelligent post, which would be consumed by maybe 3 readers.

Also weighing in as a poster more than as a mod, I personally wouldn't find any of @Hanover's options interesting, even though he's right that they're legitimate philosophy. For me, the only things of interest would be some kind of anthropological enquiry, or some medical philosophy or medical sociology.

In anthropology, there are questions like: are NDEs universal across cultures? What role have NDEs played in the formation of supernatural beliefs and in the historical formation or maintenance of religious belief systems? What can the psychology of NDEs tell us about the relationship between culture and ways of describing and conceiving of consciousness?

Anyway, probably my main point is that there's been a lot of work on NDEs by various kinds of academics, and a discussion would be better off engaging with it to fend off unmoored speculation.

Anyway, probably my main point is that there's been a lot of work on NDEs by various kinds of academics, and a discussion would be better off engaging with it to fend off unmoored speculation. — jamalrob

Aren't all opinions about death, mine included, unmoored speculation?