Outside of Dr. Long's stuff, how many other near death experiences showed gained knowledge that the person having the experience couldn't possibly have had access to? I don't care if the NDEs had common features like a tunnel, things seeming "realer than real", a diety, talking to people known to be dead, etc. I am only interested in information gained that it would be a major coincidence if they'd imagined it.

Well there you go then. You're one of 'them' - the folk who are persuaded by utter rubbish. Knowledge is not something you'll ever have.

A friend brought it to my attention that many philosophy people in here might be biased against any ideas that border on religious. I personally might prefer agnostics or atheists, but hopefully this doesn't also ensure that there is a natural tendency to shutdown any consideration of continued existence? I hope everyone really is considering my question with a very open mind?

It is not 'biased' to prefer listening to reason than to just believing what you want.

Most people believe what they want. They listen to reason as a means to an their own ends and will stop listening if or when reason starts revealing truths they'd rather not obtain.

NDEs do not seem to qualify as good evidence by any sober analysis.

People have them who are not close to death, for goodness sake! They're just curious kind of dream. Or at least, that's the more reasonable thesis about them.

If you think they're good evidence, why don't you think dreams are good evidence that sleep takes us to another realm in which laws of nature operate very differently to how they do here?

RE: Evidence of conscious existence after death.
SUBTOPIC: Tangible (Physical Examination) or Reproducibility
※→ et al,

For the purposes of this discussion, one has to set aside the concept of "proof." It implies a next-level concept. In Physics and Metaphysics, the concept of "proof" has no immediate value.

The implied meaning to the concepts of "Near-Death Experiences" (NDE), Consciousness and Memories through Consciousness, and the injection of "After-Death Experiences" (ADE), and similar types of reports on such events, no matter how detailed they may be, provide no real value to Physics and Metaphysics without supporting Tangible Outcomes (Physical Examination) or Reproducibility Findings via processes that can be replicated or repeatedly reproduced by trusted independent experimentation and close examination.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I am sure you have all seen videos of people in white lab coats sticking some poor test subject with electrodes. It is not so dissimilar to the Electroencephalogram (EEG). This uses a contact sensor. But this rarely, if ever, actually replicates the observational distances of what was reported in the NDE/ADE.

In terms of consciousness, we can detect activity, but we cannot actually demodulate any specific signal intelligence.

We have a very good idea as to how fast the "neurons" transmit the stimulation (action potential) down "axons" to a synaptic connection to the next "neuron." This can transmit a signal at between 175-to-185 km/hr (the speed of a radio signal is 300,000,000 km/sec). We need to keep in mind that if one of these Event Reports includes imagery of some sort or an apparition or other phenomenon, then we are talking about some serious level of energy. Our knowledge today suggests that the greater the frequency of modulation, the more energy it takes. I could go on and on, but the point is: In some sense, the serious investigation is not looking for proof, but rather they are looking for unexplained "energy." And that is not something done in operating rooms today.

Now is any of this new? (RHETORICAL). No... Anyone that knows the story of Frankenstein's Monster, knows that it took a lightning strike to generate the life force. While the story of Frankenstein's Monster is about the fictional character created by Mary Shelley, in the same time period, we would see the likes of Michael Faraday (electromagnetism and electrochemistry), and James Maxwell (electromagnetic phenomenon).

Just My Simple Thought,

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't see how inspecting what's going on in the brain is going to cast any light on these matters.

Imagine I become brain dead and then brain alive again and I report one of these experiences. Well, it seemed to me - at the time of the report - that I was previously travelling down a tunnel. That's is, I am currently having an apparent mnemonic experience. And that experience - the experience of seeming to remember travelling down a tunnel - is occuring when I am brain alive. And so it will have some cause in the brain. And that's sufficient to explain it.

This is why the fact the brain was not working when people report having these experiences is not good evidence of anything. For what they are actually reporting is currently remembering having the experience. The brain is working when they report having the experience, and what they're actually experiencing when they give the report is an apparent memory. And that apparent memory will have a cause in the brain.

I don't think I've ever had a dream reveal anything to me that only a person located elsewhere could know. I am not interested in NDEs being similar to each other. That could be biological. It's any information that should by no means be known to the person when they come to. And as has been mentioned repeatly a NDEs may not actually represent a temporary death experience. Perhaps at best it's a psychic experience when knowledge is gained? I'm assuming you do believe in nonphysical existence?

I appreciate the input.

I don't think I've ever had a dream reveal anything to me that only a person located elsewhere could know. — TiredThinker

That's not the defining feature of a dream. Let's say that tonight I have a dream that there is a silver sixpence under the old oak tree at the bottom of my garden. Tomorrow morning I go and dig where the dream represented it to be, and low and behold there is the silver sixpence.

What does this tell me? That I wasn't dreaming?

... could disembodied consciousness work? — TiredThinker

Of course not. :roll:

Most people are very stupid and do not know good evidence from their elbow. — Bartricks

Tbus spoke the hoi polloi! :eyes: :lol:

You can't have half a mind, can you?

Half wits – those who don't know that they don't know – are usually the last to know.

... our deaths will be harmful to us.

Nothing is "harmful" to the dead. Status quo bias harms your "reason", Batshitz, causing these kind of reification fallacies.

I'm assuming you do believe in nonphysical existence? — TiredThinker

I guess it depends on what you mean by ""nonphysical" ...

Personally I don't care if a memory formed when the brain was "off" or sometime unknown to them when they started to come to. It is information that matters. If a person can leave their body without death than to me that is equal to actual impermanent death. The mind found independence from the body somehow. It's all about confirming information.

Tbus spoke the hoi polloi! :eyes: — 180 Proof

I'm not among the hoi polloi. Like I say, it's Dr Bartricks to you.

Half wits – those who don't know that they don't know – are usually the last to know. — 180 Proof

No, you're confusing a crap mind with half a mind. Which is sign that one has one. Not that a crap mind recognizes its own crapness. Dunning Kruger. Have you heard of the Dunning Kruger effect?

Nothing is harmful to the dead. Status quo bias harms your "reason", Batshitz, causing these kind of reification fallacies. — 180 Proof

The evidence builds.

Dunning Kruger. Have you heard of the Dunning Kruger effect? — Bartricks

You've been my favorate D-Ker for years, dude! :smirk:

I'm not among the hoi polloi.

Res ipsa loquitur. QED. Wassup, Doc? :rofl:

Personally I don't care if a memory formed when the brain was "off" or sometime unknown to them when they started to come to. It is information that matters. If a person can leave their body without death than to me that is equal to actual impermanent death. The mind found independence from the body somehow. It's all about confirming information. — TiredThinker

I am talking about the fact - if it is a fact - that many of those who report having near death experiences (walking towads ilghts and so on) report having remembered having them at a time when, supposedly, their brain was doing precisely nothing.

Now, one can easily explain those by simply pointing to whatever brain event is causing their apparent memory of the experience. That will suffice. One does not have to explain the experience itself, only the apparent memory of it, for that is actually all they report.

You're now talking about something else, which is out of body experiences in which people supposedly (and I believe there's no hard evidence for this) identify things they could not have identified otherwise.

:up: Broken clock.

I don't make a huge distinction between NDEs and out of body experience without medical death or trauma. If the mind finds knowledge they should by no means have access to that shows we aren't limited to physical means of getting knowledge. This might indicate like some suggest that our brain is more of a receiver than the mind itself.

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. — TiredThinker

Still a bit hazy about the issue, but I suggest you explore the distinction between proof and evidence; I feel like it'll be worth it.

Why not? Out of body experiences are not evidence we survive our deaths.

You haven't answered my questions. My dream of the sixpence - was it a dream or not?

And do you think dreams are evidence that sleep takes us to another much more disordered realm?

Aren't NDEs often out of body experiences? If one gathers off-limits info while supposedly not in their body shouldn't that act as evidence that it wasn't as likely a dream?

What is sixpence? No I don't think typical dreams are a journey anywhere but into imagination. And I want to believe NDEs are far more than dreams.

I focus on NDEs because I think there might be more research into that than general self reported out of body experiences which might involve drug use for all I know.

So if I have a dream of a sixpence under the oak tree and then find a sixpence there, you agree that's still a dream (albeit one that raises a lot of questions).

Well, why do you think any differently about those in which a person dreams they came out of their body, sees a shoe on a roof, and then subsequently finds that there is one there?

Out of body experiences could potentially constitute evidence that the mind is an immaterial thing or that it is a tiny material thing that can float free from the body. It is not evidence that life continues after death, but at best that the mechanism by which this could happen exists.

But again, you are clearly someone who mistakes bad evidence for good. There's plenty of good evidence for the immateriality of the mind and good evidence that we survive our deaths (albeit it'll take us to a place worse than this one). But you will never know this until you die, for you are only convinced by sensible evidence, which by its nature is of a sort that - so long as one is here - will never provide you with evidence for an afterlife, only dreams of one. If you follow reason you can know of these things this side of death. But if only sensations convince you, then you'll not know about an afterlife until you're in it.

good evidence that we survive our deaths (albeit it'll take us to a place worse than this one). — Bartricks

Which evidence is that?

Our faculties of reason represent death to be a great harm. That's why rational people do virtually all they can to avoid it.

It would not be a great harm if it ended one's existence as one can't be harmed if one does not exist.

Thus we continue to exist after death, else our deaths could not harm us. And the plane of existence our deaths take us to be must be considerably worse than this one, else it would not be harmful to die, but beneficial.

That's another reason to view NDEs with suspicion - they tend to represent the afterlife to be a nice place to be. Our reason tells us it will be worse than here.

Our faculties of reason represent death to be a great harm. — Bartricks

Reason "represents"? that doesn't make sense to me.

It would not be a great harm if it — Bartricks

What is "it" in this sentence?

ended one's existence as one can't be harmed if one does not exist. — Bartricks

I don't know what "it" above references, so I have no clue what this means.

Thus we continue to exist after death, else our deaths could not harm us. And the plane of existence our deaths take us to be must be considerably worse than this one, else it would not be harmful to die, but beneficial. — Bartricks

This is incoherent to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

Reason "represents"? that doesn't make sense to me. — Noble Dust

Some mental states have representative contents. Now, in a way I agree - it makes no sense to talk of a mental state representing something to be the case, for it is minds - not states of mind - that represent things to be the case.

I, for instance, am making representations to you right now. But these words are not making representations, even though I am using them to make you aware of my representations.

So, Reason is the one who is making the representations and the representations themselves are what are generated by 'our reason' (which is a faculty).

But anyway, if you're going to try and resist my case by denying that there are any representations of Reason, then you are resisting my case by resisting the very idea that there can be evidence for anything. Which is, needless to say, to admit defeat.

What is "it" in this sentence? — Noble Dust

The event of one's brain ceasing to function. No doubt death can sometimes be gradual. But instant death is harmful. Blowing one's brains out would, presumably, lead to instant death and would be singular event. That, then.

I don't know what "it" above references, so I have no clue what this means. — Noble Dust

So, just to be clear, you don't understand how anything can be evidence for anything and you don't understand what death is?

I don't think I can help you, to be honest. I need something to work with. Are you 1?

This is incoherent to me, but maybe I'm missing something. — Noble Dust

Yes, there's nothing incoherent about it. Perhaps you don't know what 'incoherent' means. And yes, you're definitely missing something. But if I told you what, you wouldn't understand as you're missing it.

My advice is to not disparage people if you want to grow and learn, and help other people to grow and learn. Best of luck.

Eh?
This thread is about the probative value of near death experiences. And I am arguing that they have very little if any probative value, for it seems more reasonable to take them to be dreams.

There is good evidence of an afterlife. But they are not it. You asked me about that evidence, but not in good faith, I think.

Again, my advise is to not disparage your interlocutors if you want substantive discussion.

My advice is not to ask questions in bad faith.

my advise is to not disparage — Noble Dust

What do you mean by 'is'? Your advice is itself 'to not disparage'. That is, 'to not disparage' and your advice are one and the same? That's incoherent, I think.

Now, once more, our reason - faculty - represents (or, if you want to be needlessly pedantic, creates in us a mental state by means of which we are made aware of an apparent representation of Reason) our deaths to be harmful to us.

And by 'deaths' here is meant the discontinuation of our residence in the body.

And that representation is made by the faculties of reason of virtually everyone. So it's about as well corroborated as that 1 + 1 = 2.

And our reason also represents harm to be something that requires existence. You can't harm the non-existent.

Join the dots.