So, you finally got it. Nirvana, — Apollodorus

No, for better or worse, I didn't get it! :rofl:

If you have an open-mind and are not completely shut off from reason, then you have to say, at the very least that there is something to these NDEs. — Sam26

That's a very big "IF" there. You don't really expect these people to have an "open mind"? Obviously, they're basing their arguments on unexamined assumptions and unfounded hypotheses for the sake of being contradictory because they've got nothing better to do.

That's a very big "IF" there. You don't really expect these people to have an "open mind"? Obviously, they're basing their arguments on unexamined assumptions and unfounded hypotheses for the sake of being contradictory because they've got nothing better to do. — Apollodorus

There are some people here who have an open mind, and there are some people here who really do care about truth, even if they disagree. So, I wouldn't necessarily agree that people are just arguing because they have nothing better to do, or because their communists. I don't quite go as far as you. But one thing is for certain, convincing people, whatever side of the argument you're on, is a very difficult thing. As Banno would say, cheers.

I wouldn't necessarily agree that people are just arguing because they have nothing better to do, or because their communists. — Sam26

Well, there are some who seem to think that belief in reincarnation is "irrational nonsense" while failing to show that this is the case. They seem to think that they bear no burden of proof in support of their claims. So, it does make you wonder.

But I think that in philosophical terms @Bartricks and one or two others have done a good job so far.

Well, there are some who seem to think that belief in reincarnation is "irrational nonsense — Apollodorus

There's an irrational aspect to every belief system, if we define irrationality as embracing a belief without good reason.

Good reasons can include things like the testimony of experts or evidence combined with reason.

Pure logic is actually not a rational approach to an ontological issue. Is it?

so the corroborated testimonial evidence while my heart is stopped and I'm no longer breathing — Sam26

While your heart stops and you are no longer breathing you are still alive. Clinical death is the irreversible loss of brain function. What the mind sees when blood is restricted to the brain is not evidence of out of body experience. One of the drugs given with anesthesia makes you forget what you may be aware of during surgery. There may be, to varying degrees, depending on the individual, some awareness of the surgical procedure. This is well documented in the medical literature and is the reason drugs are administered to make you forget.

This just doesn't follow, i.e., because I can't explain how it is that people are able to have an OBE — Sam26

This is not what I am asking. What is being asked by me and @Banno as well is what it is that is separate from the body and functions and endures without it. Giving it a name, soul or consciousness, does not say what it is that perceives and feels but is not a function or process of the body.

If you have an open-mind and are not completely shut off from reason, then you have to say, at the very least that there is something to these NDEs. — Sam26

If you have an open-mind and are not completely shut off from reason, then you have to say, at the very least that there is something that is not fully understood. To conclude that these people have left their bodies is not being open minded, it is to insist on a desired outcome.

One of the drugs given with anesthesia makes you forget what you may be aware of during surgery. There may be, to varying degrees, depending on the individual, some awareness of the surgical procedure. This is well documented in the medical literature and is the reason drugs are administered to make you forget. — Fooloso4

The did not give me enough of the "forget me" drug.

Back eight years ago or so, when I was grossly overweight, I had to undergo a proctologist's exam. They kept pumping anesthetic into me intravenously, but not the full dose. It is known that the fat tissue in the body takes up the anesthetic, and releases it, so they may have fried my brain in the process if they gave me the dose I required. So I was under-anesthysized.

I screamed through the whole procedure. I don't remember any pain (the forget-me drug was effective in that), but I did register during, and remembered after the procedure, hearing myself scream loudly.

The doctor came to my bedside after the process, while I recuperated, and explained what had happened.

I just wonder what the other patients in the waiting room thought about that.

This is not what I am asking. What is being asked by me and Banno as well is what it is that is separate from the body and functions and endures without it. — Fooloso4

They call it the soul. Why is that answer insufficient?

Pure logic is actually not a rational approach to an ontological issue. Is it? — frank

Logic can serve as a basis or start for philosophical inquiry even into ontological issues. But if others introduce arguments like "woo" and "shit" or whatever, then there can be no inquiry of any kind and no discussion.

Logic can serve as a basis or start for philosophical inquiry even into ontological issues. But if others introduce arguments like "woo" and "shit" or whatever, then there can be no inquiry of any kind and no discussion. — Apollodorus

You can have discussions with the people who do want to discuss it. Just ignore the others if they're bothering you.

They call it the soul. Why is that answer insufficient? — frank

The term has a long history and has meant different things. To say that the soul is something other than the body does not tell us what it is, it just gives it a name.

Sounds horrible. During surgery they give the patient paralytics. There are cases where the paralytics works but the patient is still aware and can feel the pain of the scalpel and has no way of signalling that they are awake.

To say that the soul is something other than the body does not tell us what it is, it just gives it a name. — Fooloso4

What all definitions have in common is that it's an animating force (anima). For Neoplatonists it was part of a divine emanation. This is monistic idealism.

For a substance dualist, it's made of mind stuff.

Stories spanning back to science fiction's golden age picture it as information.

Does that help?

what is it that is reincarnated? — Banno

The answer is, your consciousness, viz., whatever it is that makes you, you, for example, your memories and your experiences. Do we know how that's possible? No. Do we know the mechanism? No. Do we understand any of the physics of such a process? It's doubtful. — Sam26

i think it would be better off if you just leave it as whatever makes someone themselves, but if one’s self is tied to their memories and experiences (and rightfully so? i guess?) i do see an issue with how is one reincarnated if they cannot recall their past lives without specific mystical intervention? (which could be wishful thinking as well, but highly trivial since there’s so many cases!)

i think a less problematic explanation is that it is your consciousness that moves on into another body, and then it adapts or transforms to whatever body it may inhabit, and accrues a “self” for that particular body in the mean time

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindstream

“Citta-saṃtāna (Sanskrit), literally "the stream of mind", is the stream of succeeding moments of mind or awareness. It provides a continuity of the personality in the absence of a permanently abiding "self" (ātman), which Buddhism denies. The mindstream provides a continuity from one life to another, akin to the flame of a candle which may be passed from one candle to another“

i don’t understand “a continuity of the personality” at all though..

What all definitions have in common is that it's an animating force (anima). — frank

Right, but the idea of a soul that reanimates a body which is not the same body but is still somehow "you" is not the same as Aristotle's psyche or the Hebrew ruach, breathe of God.

There's obviously a lot more that can be said, but I'm calling it a day. I'm actually working on Youtube videos on this very subject, viz., NDEs. Whether I post to Youtube I'm not sure, but I am developing a script. In fact, I have the script for about three videos so far, and they're each about 15 minutes long, give or take. Once I develop a script for about four videos I'll start posting them, maybe.

The title for my video's will be - Near-Death Experiences and the Testimonial Evidence. There is a possibility that I could change the title, but that's what I have so far.

What software are you using? I've always wanted to make graphics for YouTube videos.

Right, but the idea of a soul that reanimates a body which is not the same body but is still somehow "you" is not the same as Aristotle's psyche or the Hebrew ruach, breathe of God. — Fooloso4

Is that a problem?

The problem is using a term that has various meanings does not tell us what it is that endures beyond life. Neither Aristotle's psyche or the Hebrew ruach does. Calling it "soul" means no more than calling it "something". "Something" is not an account of that something.

Calling it "soul" means no more than calling it "something". "Something" is not an account of that something. — Fooloso4

It's you. Your experiences, your skills, your fears, your disappointments, your failures, your relationships, etc.

It's you. Your experiences, your skills, your fears, your disappointments, your failures, your relationships, etc. — frank

I make no distinction between me and my body. I would have none of the things you mention if I was a disembodied entity somehow tethered to a body.

Probably nothing, considering that you've made up your mind that souls don't exist. — baker

*sad*
Why do you say that? What makes you think that I've "made up your mind that souls don't exist"?
Do answer that.


There are many doctrines about what the "soul" is. How is one supposed to know which one is the right one??

What does this have to do with good communication and communicating intelligibly?
— baker

Who cares? — frank

Now that's a productive approach to discussion!

In an atmosphere of goading and cynicism, how can any decent person hope to have a meaningful conversation?

The problem is using a term that has various meanings does not tell us what it is that endures beyond life. Neither Aristotle's psyche or the Hebrew ruach does. Calling it "soul" means no more than calling it "something". "Something" is not an account of that something. — Fooloso4

Indeed. This is why doctrines about the soul tend to contain the desription of the mechanism by which the soul gets reincarnated. The "downside" is that one actually has to find and read those texts ...

I'm going to quote myself:
Interesting, isn't it, that folk suppose that because "I am convinced", it follows that "Hence, you ought be convinced". Going both ways. "I am not convinced, hence, you ought not be convinced".
— Banno
There's apparently an imperative in being convinced of something. One expects others to be similar convinced. — Banno

This is true for some people.

But beyond that, a discussion about reincarnation/rebirth needn't be more than just about learning the terms of the discourse at hand and engaging in the discourse accordingly. There's no need to believe any of it.

I would have none of the things you mention if I was a disembodied entity somehow tethered to a body — Fooloso4

How do you know that?

In an atmosphere of goading and cynicism, how can any decent person hope to have a meaningful conversation? — baker

There was no goading or cynicism there. Try thinking the best of people.

I would have none of the things you mention if I was a disembodied entity somehow tethered to a body
— Fooloso4

How do you know that? — frank

I would have no manual skills without a body. Those skill involve muscle memory. Fear has a bodily component, flooding the body with adrenaline, fight or flight. Some of my relationships are to varying degrees physical. I would not have my biological children. Failure of children to thrive often has something to do with the lack of physical contact.

I would have no manual skills without a body. Those skill involve muscle memory. Fear has a bodily component, flooding the body with adrenaline, fight or flight. Some of my relationships are to varying degrees physical. I would not have my biological children. Failure of children to thrive often has something to do with the lack of physical contact. — Fooloso4

No one denies that physical life is an important component of the generation of your skills, memories, and so forth.

I'm asking how you know these things, once generated, disappear with your body?

Suit yourself.

I'm asking how you know these things, once generated, disappear with your body? — frank

In the case of muscle memory I don't see how it can be carried into another life if the muscles are not part of that life. Besides, I might be reincarnated as a slug.