Nope.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586454

Agree. The clue is in the word 'Near'.
I note that this topic has been discussed previously.
So, still digging for 'evidence' and finding a PN article, written in 2006!

:up:

You are very patient :sparkle:

I recently learned that a significant percentage of those who die in hospitals have a huge burst of brainwave activity subsequent to being pronounced dead, which then gradually subsides, unless of course they come back from the brink and commonly report a near death experience. Libido's last ditch effort, spiritual motivation from those who do revive, soul leaving the body? Who knows?

A waste of philosophical energies. :meh:

From time to time I ask my students how they feel about life after death. A solid majority say they believe in it, in keeping with most Americans (82% in a recent Gallup poll).

These first two sentences of the article sent me off looking for statistics...

An old result, from Research gate.

Does anyone have more recent statistics, preferably with a broader scope?

I'm guessing belief in life after death is culturally based, deriving from religiosity. Sociology, not philosophy,

The interesting philosophical issue is the language around what it is that might survive death, especially how it could be identified with the deceased individual. The notion of soul is problematic.

Don't linger on the word "near." That only emphasizes that it wasn't permanent this time. Focus on any information recovered during the experience that the patient couldn't have had because it occurred in a different room entirely from the patient for example. Or if you think of the experience itself I have read DMT and Ketamine are the chemicals most likely to produce the experiences described in NDEs. I don't know that the brain can even produce enough DMT to produce a full blown hallucination.

There's a whole rabbit hole to go down on this forum if you're up for it:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body/p1

Also, regard the fundamentalist atheists here. Apathy, I've found, is the best response to this particular cult.

.

I only linger on the subject because I suffer from chronic pain that makes most days useless. I rarely leave the couch outside of going to work. After getting Covid-19 I started get trigeminal nerve pain. I can't help but think about what's next since clearly medical knowledge isn't advanced enough now. I am grateful I was in great health through most of my 20s when health is supposed to be good and life is supposed to be enjoyable. But ultimately, it's not a pointless question to ask what's next since quality of life isn't promised to anyone. And philosophy is the subject that must be open to all things.

.

But ultimately, it's not a pointless question to ask what's next since quality of life isn't promised to anyone. And philosophy is the subject that must be open to all things. — TiredThinker

So you want an answer to something which is inevitable? We have to accept that we all have to die one day. Some would do it sooner or later than others. But do not stress yourself so much wondering what happens after all. There are even more probabilities to be noting rather than something

Don't linger on the word "near." — TiredThinker

Don't worry, I don't :smile:

I only linger on the subject because I suffer from chronic pain that makes most days useless
[ ... ]
But ultimately, it's not a pointless question to ask what's next since quality of life isn't promised to anyone. And philosophy is the subject that must be open to all things. — TiredThinker

Of course, philosophy is open to consider all kinds of things to all kinds of people, ideas and beliefs.
So many theories, speculations, so little time...
We need to work out how best to spend the limited time we have in whatever circumstances we find ourselves.
But to linger on the question of life after death...when there is no real evidence, that is more a matter of faith, isn't it?
You can either find comfort in that faith, or not.
If you continue to search for the answer, then I fear that you can only give yourself more stress.
More pain...

Those who wish to live long, or for eternity, do not always prosper...
You are right, quality not quantity of life is important.
Consider what that means.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Find out what life is, then the answer will be obvious. — ArielAssante

What if there is not an answer after all? :chin:

The link that was provided in the above post, is a link to a thread that I created on the subject of Does Consciousness Survive Death? I make the claim based on the strength of the testimonial evidence, which is quite substantial, that we can know that we survive the death of the body. It's not speculation or an opinion, it's knowledge, based on the strength of the testimonial evidence. Don't be put off by many of the comments that there is no evidence. I would read through some of my posts in that thread, and decide for yourself, either for or against.

Most of what we believe comes in the form of testimonial evidence. If you read a book, listen to a lecture, and even listen to a podcast, you're getting testimony from someone. You have to know how to evaluate testimonial evidence, no matter what form the testimony takes. Testimonial evidence can be very weak at times, but it can also be very strong under the right circumstances.

Most people in here haven't studied NDEs, and you can see that in their responses. There was only one person who responded to my argument with thoughtfulness, and that was @Fdrake. He responded directly to the argument. We didn't agree, but at least he took on the argument directly.

By the way, my beliefs on this subject have nothing to do with any religious ideology. I'm not religious.

Does this make any compelling arguments that NDEs represent continued cognition after the physical brain isn't active? — TiredThinker

OK, we know about the "fuss" that the subject of NDE has produced and continues to produce. In reading this article, a question came to my mind: Well, NDE is still "Near Death Experience". What we actually need is an ADE, i.e., "After Death Experience". That would consist a much stronger if not ultimate evidence about life after death. But I don't think this is likely to happen ...

Now, there are a few other things that are used as an evidence for afterlife. One of them is regression. There's a lot of documentation of reports from patients recalling past lives. Yet, even here there's a great controversy about the authenticity and validity of these reports.

So, we always come back to point zero in this subject!

Just living itself is always a near-death experience – "nearer to you than your jugular vein."

Those who wish to live long, or for eternity, do not always prosper... — Amity

True. To "wish" for an impossibility is not logical. :nerd:

I think there's excellent evidence that life continues after death, but I'm sceptical that this sort of experience provides it.
Why isn't it more plausible that these people simply had a dream?

I read your post previously, or at least the first 10 pages. It seemed to go in circles after that. I really need more than sheer number of testimonials of the experience. I need information gained from the experience that can't be gotten by a person unmoving and stuck in the room. Like for example I heard such a story of a person who had an out of body experiences and claimed to see a sneaker on the roof of the hospital, and strangely enough that was true. I like to hear more like that.

I don't know if people question more the limits of research methods available, or those doing the research and any bias they may have. Personally I have seen videos of a couple NDEs researchers that seemed completely genuine and not too zealous. Maybe even less enthusiastic than those claiming new treatments for cancer. Just very matter of fact.

And yes you could say a person never died if they can make a recovery no matter if the doctor says they "officially" died. But to my knowledge dead men tell no tails, and I am skeptical of psychic research. I don't think they have ever beaten the odds when testing their claimed abilities. So I don't concern myself as much with talking to people after they are all dead.

I am interested in knowledge gained from the experience that is very unlikely to be gained from the individual in their state and position. It would of course be unethical to ship a person to a lab for a proper experiment if there is a better chance to save them first and foremost. It's also unethical to prove that smoking causes cancer because we have enough evidence that taking a person in good health with no cancer in the family and making them smoke is a bad idea. I don't think this type of research should be ignored because it isn't more convenient.

Why think the experiences are veridical as opposed to dreams?

The testimonial evidence is evidence of the experiences.

No one seriously doubts that people have these experiences.

What's in doubt is whether they have any probative value.

I think they don't, for it seems more reasonable to think they are dreams.

Do dreams provide evidence that sleep takes us to another very disordered realm governed by quite different rules to those that apply here?

What other type of evidence are you referring to?

Find out what life is, then the answer will be obvious. — ArielAssante

What does this sentence mean?

ditto to your question.

I think most people know what a typical dream would seem like? Personally my dreams are weak, not vivid, and I rarely remember them. Also entirely too many dreams about work.

I read your post previously, or at least the first 10 pages. It seemed to go in circles after that. I really need more than sheer number of testimonials of the experience. I need information gained from the experience that can't be gotten by a person unmoving and stuck in the room. Like for example I heard such a story of a person who had an out of body experiences and claimed to see a sneaker on the roof of the hospital, and strangely enough that was true. I like to hear more like that. — TiredThinker

Ya, I repeat myself because people don't always read what is written carefully. So, I can see why it may appear to go in circles, but there is a lot that's covered. If you don't read it, you won't get the full impact of the argument.

And, you said you read the first ten pages, if you did, then you should know it's not just about numbers. I explained this in the first couple of pages. Moreover, why would you think that it's about someone "unmoving and stuck in a room?" It's much more substantial than that, and the experiences are much more than that. I'm not going to rehash the argument in this thread, but you don't seem to understand the impact of the inductive argument.

I assumed in my argument that most people have at least read some of these experiences, so I don't get into the various experiences, other than to point out the common elements of the experiences. Many of the experiences were taken from https://www.nderf.org, so if you want to read about these experiences, this is a good place to start.

Question: What about consciousness proves, no, suggests, its survival/continuation post death?

The low hanging fruit is memories of past lives. However, we can't rule out false memories, coincidences, and plain ol' lying.