Why think the experiences are veridical as opposed to dreams? — Bartricks

One reason is, they're much different from dreams. In these experiences people are describing what's going on in the operating room, for example, in real time. They're are describing the conversations that the doctors, nurses, and other medical personal are having while their heart is stopped, and while there is no brain activity. Since when do dreams give accurate details of what's happening around you while your unconscious (there are some exceptions, but generally dreams don't give this kind of information)? Moreover, these kinds of testimonials have been corroborated over and over again. I don't think it's reasonable at all to think they are dreams. All you have to do is read 20 or 30 of these to understand this. Moreover, dreams usually occur in REM sleep, and that's not what's going on here at all. These people are in a completely different state of awareness.

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

If the testimonial evidence is reliable, and I believe it is based the corroboration of many of the testimonials, then when people talk about meeting their deceased parents, friends, and other family members, including seeing people they did not know had passed, this suggests that those who have passed continue to exist as themselves. This is one reason, there are other reasons, including what goes on in hospices just before people pass away.

I fear you've dangerously lowered the bar for evidence on such an important issue as life after death.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. — Sagan standard

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. — Banno

I agree that the notion of a soul, in terms of pointing to something inner is problematic, which is why I talk about consciousness instead of a soul. However, we don't have a clear idea what consciousness is, so the question about what survives is not clear. There would have to be some continuity of consciousness, viz., memory, continuity of experience (subjective and objective experiences), etc.

Address specifically how I've lowered the bar. Don't just make statements without good reasons. Where specifically did the inductive argument fail? Did I not provide enough numbers, variety of NDEs, corroboration, consistency, etc? All your comment does is show that you don't follow the argument.

Address specifically how I've lowered the bar. Don't just make statements without good reasons. Where specifically did the inductive argument fail? Did I not provide enough numbers, variety of NDEs, corroboration, consistency, etc? All your comment does is show that you don't follow the argument. — Sam26

Well, I already pointed out, as clearly as I could, that memories (of past lives) are hopelessly inadequate.

The argument, if you read it, doesn't conclude anything about past lives, it concludes that consciousness survives the death of the body. Past lives is a side issue that has some evidence (based on what has happened in many NDEs), but it's has nothing to do with the thrust of my main argument. So, again, you're not following the argument, or you haven't read it closely enough.

The argument, if you read it, doesn't include the idea of past lives, it concludes that consciousness survives the death of the body. Past lives is a side issue that has some evidence (based on what has happened in many NDEs), but it's has nothing to do with the thrust of my main argument. So, again, you're not following the argument, or you haven't read it closely enough. — Sam26

I mentioned past life memories for a good reason! It's the best evidence for life after death and I've demonstrated that it falls short of the mark.

That would be your argument, not mine. I do believe that there is evidence for past lives based on NDEs and DMT experiences, but this would entail a different argument.

There is the fact our minds are indivisible and thus indestructible. And there is the fact our deaths are extremely harmful to us (which yet would not be if they ceased our existence).

The problem with all of the testimonials is the brain wasn't fully dead. Just because you are not conscious or responsive, does not mean you are not collecting smells, sounds, and even visuals if your eyes are opened by a doctor or your lids fail.

If we could monitor a brain, see it fully dead, then bring it back to life, then we could test. But currently we cannot.

We can also have absolutely no scientific indication that you are anything more than your brain. At best we could say if something duplicated your brain functions, we could say "You lived on." But there's no indication of that either.

Lets think one more time. Suppose there was something that copied your brain patterns, then put it into a new body or machine. Is that really you? You're dead. That's just a copy. And if its just a copy, why would the thing that did the copying need to copy you only once, and only when you're about to die? Why not at your prime? Or multiple copies?

You will die. I will die. Everyone will die. Its an incredibly uncomfortable proposition and one that is difficult to imagine. When we die, we'll be gone. That's really all we know. And we cannot make good decisions about reality beyond what we know.

That's not evidence they are not dreams, but that they are a certain sort of dream.
What makes something a dream has nothing to do with how vivid it is. A dream is generated by the imagination.
Dreams can also incorporate real information from the world, such as sounds.
And most of our dreams are alike. We go to a disordered place that seems to be governed by different laws of nature, yes? And we have recurring dreams of falling and being chased.

So again, do you think dream experiences are evidence that sleep takes us to another place?

And most people don't have these near death experiences. What if I almost die and I just dream of being on a bicycle made of cheese. That's not going to be recorded as a near death experience, is it? Or what if I experience nothing. Is that recorded?
Or are the only ones that are recorded and considered evidence those that have a certain content? If so then the overlap - which wouldn't count for much anyway - is artificially constructed by the fact that it is only experiences of that sort that are seen as qualifying.

The problem with all of the testimonials is the brain wasn't fully dead. — Philosophim

:100:

The problem with all of the testimonials is the brain wasn't fully dead. Just because you are not conscious or responsive, does not mean you are not collecting smells, sounds, and even visuals if your eyes are opened by a doctor or your lids fail. — Philosophim

First, there are plenty of NDEs where there is no sign of brain activity, where the blood has been completely drained from the brain; or, that the brain is so compromised one wonders how their having any experience, let alone hyper-experiences (more real than real). Second, your speculating about what the brain is capable of in these conditions, you don't know. It seems rather obvious that the brain is definitely in a degraded state based on monitoring procedures.

All you're doing is giving your opinions on the subject, which isn't much of a counter-argument.

By stuck in a room my emphasis is gaining knowledge from outside. If a person's body hasn't moved and they claimed an out of body experience they should be able to point out particular details from elsewhere that they hadn't been prior. https://www.nderf.org is run by Dr. Long who isn't a scientist and he relies entirely on self reporting which seems to have a very Christian bias. I'm not particular to those stories. A more international pool of people is much preferred.

That would be your argument, not mine. I do believe that there is evidence for past lives based on NDEs and DMT experiences, but this would entail a different argument. — Sam26

Proof vs. Evidence.

That out of the way, I hope that some of us do survive death!

There is research into previous lives which seems even less scientific as a living person is referring to a dead person who can't confirm they are the same person. I'm not partial to reincarnation, but would accept it if it ended up being true.

If I was in a hospital knowing I might be in mortal danger I don't think I'd let my thought travel far from there. Seems priority to stay present and not off riding unicorns and stuff?

Do we even know if reincarnation is a thing or is compulsory? I think reincarnation and NDEs need to be studied separately.

"There is the fact our minds are indivisible and thus indestructible. And there is the fact our deaths are extremely harmful to us (which yet would not be if they ceased our existence)."

What do we know about the mind to know it isn't divisible or destructible? If we continue after death how is death harmful to the person?

Proof vs. Evidence

If the brain was fully dead you'd ultimately have nobody to talk to on the subject. But assuming those that have these experiences acquired knowledge that is too distant from their senses could that not add credibility?

Not sure what you're saying. Proof and evidence aren't dissimilar. Proof is maybe most solid in math, but I think in most science it is always a very high bar to achieve. Evidence can still be very strong for something.

Which will you choose then? Let us see... Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your self-respect? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that we live again. If you gain, you gain nothing, an eternity of smug self-satisfaction, in the company of equally repellent souls; if you lose, you lose everything, as you wasted your chance to live authentically and perceive reality. Wager, then, without hesitation, that we don't. — Pascal's Other Wager

Our reason represents our minds to be indivisible. As it is by reason that we know of their existence, we should also listen to what our reason tells us about them.
If something is indivisible, then it has no parts into which it can be deconstructed. And thus it is indestructible.
And death harms us because we survive it and suffer harm. For you need to exist to be harmed. Our deaths harm us. And so we exist when we die. Death is not good for us. Even when it is rational to seek death, this will be because it is the lesser of two evils.
That's another reason to doubt near death experiences. They tend to represent death to be positive.

In my view, the question "is there life after death or not?" is meaningless, due to the fact that I cannot conceive of a "next" experience, nor of a "previous" experience.

For example, I can remember what I ate earlier today at six o'clock, but I cannot conceive of having had another earlier experience before this one that happened at six o'clock - all i can do is recall now what i ate earlier at six o'clock. Likewise, I expect that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I cannot conceive of another experience after this one that will occur concurrently with the sun rising. All I can do is expect now that the sun will rise tomorrow.

So if "life after death" is to mean anything to me, It cannot refer to an ordered set of experiences, which is nonsensical since there is only one. So it must refer to some order of events that I can perceive, and yet I cannot conceive of the universe having an ending or a beginning, hence I cannot make sense of the question.

Ok, but what better evidence is there of an afterlife if not NDEs? What subjects of study are you focusing on? And certainly the body hurts when injured and we feel that injury, but how do we know it isn't a stubborn puppet we simply can't shed at will (although some mystics claim it is possible).

Are you meaning "life" in a strictly biological sense, or could disembodied consciousness work?

The evidence I gave you is the best evidence. NDEs are not good evidence.

Note, good evidence is not that which would persuade most people. Most people are very stupid and do not know good evidence from their elbow. Good evidence is made of clear deliverances from our reason that we have no reason to distrust and that are widely corroborated.

Our reason is our guide to reality. It is by reason that you know you exist. It is by reason that you know you have a mind (you do not experience your mind, but rather experience by means of your mind, and so your mind's actual existence is not something experience can provide you with any direct evidence for, but only indirectly by means of what your reason tells you about experiences, namely that they cannot occur absent a mind to have them).

So, stop thinking that you have to experience something to know it. Stop thinking that sensible experiences are the ultimate evidence. They're not. Indeed, the thought that they are is itself not something that we can be sensibly aware of. So those who think - and it is the vast majority at the moment - that sensible experience is our ultimate source of evidence are the stupid people I was just talking about.

Your reason tells you that you - a mind - exists. And that same faculty of reason tells you that your mind is indivisible.
You can't have half a mind, can you? What does that even mean? (I do not mean the common phrase 'I've half a mind to...' - which means 'I have some motivation to' and is not a claim about the divisibility of the mind).

This is not some peculiar deliverance of my reason. Virtually everyone's reason says the same, including the reason of eminent reasoners such as Plato, Descartes, Berkeley and so on.

And unlike NDEs, there is nothing suspicious about such deliverances. They are widespread - for no one can conceive of half a mind - and there is no reason to doubt their probative force.

And so we have excellent evidence that our minds are indivisible. Some things must be, for not everything can be made of other things. And our minds seem to be indivisible.

And if something is indivisible, then it is simple - it has no parts. And thus it is indestructible. How does one destroy something that has no parts?

Our bodies, by contrast, are clearly divisible and will crumble away.

Thus, by a simple exercise of reason one can see - see by reason, not sense - that we will survive the destruction of our bodies.

That's a venerable argument and I know of no refutation of it.

And our reason tells us - virtually all of us - that our deaths will be harmful to us. Really harmful. But they would not be harmful to us if we did not exist. For one has to exist to be harmed. And so, once more, our reason is telling us that we will survive the destruction of our bodies.

These are good pieces of evidence. But most will consider them weak and will not be persuaded by them.

NDEs are not a source of powerful evidence. Why? Because there are more plausible alternative explanations of why some people - and it is only some - have these kinds of experience as they come close to death (and incidentally, a lot of people have them when they're not close to death).

I don't think trying to use logic can stand in place of something that can be physically demonstrated and informationally communicated.