Death, defined as the end of consciousness can't be distinguished from consciousness that isn't conscious of anything. As far as I'm concerned, a person who exists but is not doing anything can't be told apart from a person who doesn't exist.

Yes, I do agree that generally "...the implausibility of a claim tends to undermine the credibility" of that claim.
— Sam26
The point I was considering is that the implausibility of a claim tends to undermine the credibility of the witness who makes that claim. If the expert can't provide enough support to make the claim seem plausible, but persists in asserting the claim, this tends to count against the expert's credibility. The witness must be able to provide some reasonable account of the justification or basis for the claim, and that account must stand up to scrutiny. If it stands up to scrutiny, it's plausible. If it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, then on what grounds would the expert affirm it? — Cabbage Farmer

I agree, that an implausible claim undermines the witness making the claim. I will go a step further, and say, that a claim given by a group of people (say, as part of their worldview) is also undermined when it's implausible. Whether some claim is implausible also depends on who is making the claim, i.e., are they an expert in the field, are they in a position to know, are they giving a good argument, and what are they relying on to justify their claim? So, there are many factors (including psychological factors) that drive why people consider some claims implausible or not.

I agree generally with the last part of your statements above, but I would add that justification isn't always about giving good reasons (logic). There are other ways of justifying a belief. For example, sensory experience, testimony, and linguistic training. When I think of reasoning (specifically, correct reasoning), I think of inductive and deductive arguments. But yes, if someone's claim fails to give a good justification, then it's certainly suspect. It must also be pointed out that whether some claim is plausible or not, doesn't equate to the claim necessarily being true or false, it just means they don't have a good justification. And, it's also true that any claim must stand up to scrutiny, so I agree.

However, I don't think that because something seems implausible, that it follows that it is.
— Sam26
Do you mean something like this:

The fact that a claim seems plausible to me or to anyone does not entail the claim is true. Likewise, the fact that a claim seems implausible to me or to anyone does not entail the claim is false.

Plausibility is always plausibility relative to some epistemic context. Our evaluation of the plausibility of a claim is in principle open to revision. — Cabbage Farmer

Yes.

Many discoveries have been overturned in science because people considered what most find implausible. So, there has to be the right kind of balance, we tend to get to invested in certain worldviews, which can impede new discoveries.
— Sam26
What's the right sort of balance?

There's always the problem of allocation of resources. There's always the problem of prioritization. It would be as disastrous for our global society as a whole, as it would be for any single person, to continually commit a significant share of resources to every conceivable investigation.

When I lose my eyeglasses or my house keys, I don't book a flight to every city on Earth to track them down. I look in a few places nearby, beginning with the most likely. Sometimes they don't turn up and I broaden the search. Occasionally I've found my keys still in the lock on the door. Once I found my eyeglasses in the refrigerator. — Cabbage Farmer

In terms of balance, we should allow people, within reason, to freely pursue their intuitions (there are limits to this of course, like resources, etc), this helps to make advances in areas we wouldn't normally pursue. I generally agree with your statements, so for the most part we agree.

Death, defined as the end of consciousness can't be distinguished from consciousness that isn't conscious of anything. As far as I'm concerned, a person who exists but is not doing anything can't be told apart from a person who doesn't exist. — TheMadFool

What's "...consciousness that isn't conscious of anything[?]" If your conscious, then being aware (in some way) is a necessary feature of consciousness. Maybe you're thinking of someone who is in a coma (or something similar), so they're unconscious, or they're not aware of anything. Sometimes people who we think aren't aware, are indeed aware, as has happened in some cases. Even if a person is in a coma and not "doing anything" that's much different from a person who doesn't exist, whatever "doesn't exist" means in this context (I assume you mean dead.).

What's "...consciousness that isn't conscious of anything[?]" If your conscious, then being aware (in some way) is a necessary feature of consciousness. Maybe you're thinking of someone who is in a coma (or something similar), so their unconscious, or their not aware of anything. Sometimes people who we think aren't aware, are indeed aware, as has happened in some cases. Even if a person is in a coma and not "doing anything" that's much different from a person who doesn't exist, whatever "doesn't exist" means in this context (I assume you mean dead.). — Sam26

Think of the mind as a vessel, its contents are thoughts. The vessel (the mind) contains thoughts, through these thoughts, via metacognition, the mind (the vessel) becomes self-aware. Imagine now, you empty the mind (very Buddhist), empty the vessel of thoughts. The mind is not thinking anything at this point and yet the mind (the vessel) continues to exist. This empty mind (empty vessel; no thinking) is identical to no mind (nonexistent mind). See :point: mushin no shin

$Mind - Thoughts = No \space Mind \space (death, \space nonexistence)$

So, essentially you're saying it's like a brain that's biologically alive, but shows no evidence of consciousness, because all that makes it conscious (metacognitive stuff, or the stuff of consciousness) is not there. For example, it would be like turning on a radio, but there are no electromagnetic radio waves for the radio to pick up. Is this what you're implying?

I keep hearing some scientists and philosophers claim that consciousness is an illusion. This has to be one of the silliest claims I've heard. Having an illusion requires consciousness, i.e., it's a necessary feature of having an illusion that there be a conscious self. You can't deny the very thing that gives rise to an illusion. It's like doubting that you exist. Who exactly is doing the doubting?

do you believe all living things are conscious? — dazed

Sure. Doesn't mean I can communicate with them, or visa versa, yet. But conscious? Hell yeah. However, rocks likely have a different value system than I have, and certainly more long term perspective. So I am not sure why they would want to talk to me anyway.

A peer reviewed study is consistent with my own research, viz., that NDEs are not consistent with hallucinations. This is confirmed in the following study:

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/948999

Moreover, research is being done all over the world into the experiences of NDErs, including the following universities and disciplines.

The following quote is take from the above link:

"The researchers on the study represent many medical disciplines, including the neurosciences, critical care, psychiatry, psychology, social sciences and humanities, and represent many of the world’s most respected academic institutions including Harvard University, Baylor University, University of California Riverside, University of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, Medical College of Wisconsin, and the Universities of Southampton and London."

do you believe all living things are conscious? — dazed

There are different levels of consciousness. For example, dreaming, meditative states, DMT states (and other drug induced states) , monkeys, dogs, all the way down to insects. It's not clear how far down the biological life scale this goes, but it's clear that there are levels of consciousness, and different states of consciousness. Based on my research, and the research of others, I believe we are in a dumbed-downed state of consciousness as humans. This isn't our natural state of being or existence. Death returns us to our natural state, which is probably why so many NDErs feel like they're home when they experience an NDE.

monkeys, dogs, all the way down to insects. — Sam26

We should administer psychoactive drugs (LSD, shrooms, ayahuasca, etc.) to animals too as part of a comprehensive research on mind & consciousness. Odd that no one's tried this before! Imagine what we could learn, eh? (Some) animals may just require the slightest of nudges in a manner of speaking to, well, elicit an awakening. They're capable of amazing mental feats even without any assistance; Youtube and TikTok will attest to that, oui monsieur/mademoiselle?

I can think of some people on this forum who could use a DMT trip. :nerd:

VVLTP :mask:

Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and when death is come, we are not. — Letter to Menoeceus, 3rd century BC

... the greater the damage to the brain, the greater the corresponding damage to the mind. The natural extrapolation from this pattern is all too clear – obliterate brain functioning altogether, and mental functioning too will cease. — The Myth of an Afterlife, 2015

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

The argument is logical (inductive argument), don't give your opinions, give reasons why the argument fails. — Sam26

The argument is based on opinion. Why the more stringent restriction on criticism of the argument than the bases on which the argument was built on?

However, rocks likely have a different value system than I have, and certainly more long term perspective. So I am not sure why they would want to talk to me anyway. — Book273

Maybe not to you, personally. Maybe you are boring as a conversationalist, or not sexy enough. I don't know. But one thing is for certain: I have anecdotal evidence of people claiming rocks talking to them. Furthermore, evidence that sheer rock surfaces (at least one evidence) can respond to prayer and let water flow out of the surface.

"NDE" is not the (existential) death-state itself so it's not informative about life after life. If it were death, then (A) it's irreversible brain decomposition would somehow reverse itself and yet no such "reports" are forthcoming and (B) irreversible brain decomposition entails absence of memory-formation and cessation of "experience" of a purported life after life. This 'folk interpretation' of a brain-state phenomenon is absurd (ludicrous) on its face and even worse under both philosophical and scientific scrutiny. I think it's far from "closed-minded" to say so."


I will agree that a near-death experience is not a death state, if we’re using the word death as you’re using it. However, clinical death is another matter, and it’s different from your use, and it’s the use that most use in this context. However, the point of near-death experiences (I’m using bold to over-emphasize the point) is not that they are death experiences, it’s that they are near-death experiences. I would never claim that a near-death experience is the same as death.

I would dispute the claim that NDEs are not informative about the death. And, my inductive argument, which is given at least twice in this thread, explains why it’s informative. Your contention that it’s absurd is going to need a bit more support, to say the least. Here’s why…

Why do I say that the testimonial evidence, and it is evidence, is strong in support of consciousness surviving the death of the body (here I’m using the word death as you’re using it)? Because the same criteria that makes any testimonial evidence strong is the same criteria being applied in my argument.

These criteria are as follows:

1) Number of reports (although numbers are not enough)
2) Variety of reports, variety adds to the strength of the reports.
3) Truth of the reports, which is determined in the following ways:

(a) Since we are dealing with testimonial evidence, in order to know if the testimonial evidence is true, we need corroboration, i.e., we need an objective way to verify some of the testimonial evidence. This helps to establish the truth of the testimonial evidence, and since the evidence is testimonial evidence, it helps to establish the truth of the premises.

(b) Another important factor in determining the truth of testimonial evidence is firsthand testimony, as opposed to hearsay or secondhand testimony. Firsthand testimony is stronger than hearsay or second-hand testimony, all things being equal.

(c) Consistency of the reports is another important criterion in terms of getting to the truth. However, testimonial evidence does not have to be perfectly consistent to be credible. When dealing with a large number of reports you will inevitably find some inconsistency. So, inconsistency itself is not enough to rule out the reports unless the inconsistency is widespread, and of such a number, that it affects the quality and number of consistent reports. So, although consistency is important, it must be looked at in terms of the overall picture.

There are other criteria used in my inductive argument that make a strong inductive argument, but these are enough to make my point. There has been quite a bit of data by scientists that support the consistency of the reports. This consistency has been compared to the consistency of veridical reports and shown to be at least as consistent. Moreover, the memories of these reports tend to be stronger than many of the memories of veridical reports.

To say that this kind of testimonial evidence is just “folk interpretations,” is not to understand the nature of the testimonial evidence. We’re not dealing with a few stories, or a few anecdotes, that haven’t been scrutinized in the ways I’ve outlined. We’re dealing with millions and millions of reports that have come from every culture from around the world; and many thousands of these reports have been analyzed in the way I’ve outlined.

I keep talking about the testimonial evidence, but where is it? It’s on sites devoted to collecting such material, such as https://www.nderf.org/Archives/NDERF_NDEs.html

This is not the only source. There have been hundreds of books published about people’s experiences, and there have been hundreds of scientific articles published from various universities from around the world.

Further data to support my argument.
https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2020/11/Nov-2020-NDE-C-CC.pdf

There are other universities from around the world involved, not just the University of Virginia.

All of the testimonial evidence must be looked at in terms of the whole of the reports. Moreover, to say that this evidence is ludicrous or absurd is a comment that is itself ludicrous and absurd. And, given the strength of such evidence, it is absolutely closed-minded to reject it in such absolute and dogmatic terms.

The argument also applies to , who says that this inductive argument is just an opinion.

I deleted the video because I didn't think it was good enough. I will add the video again when I redo it.

This is the 3rd recording of this video in an attempt to make it better. I recorded it on 1/11/2023, so the first two were obviously deleted.

While the patient is "down" and there is a complete cessation of brain activity, this is proof that the patient's brain is not forming any new memory traces of the so-called "NDE" the patient believes she had while her brain activity was zero. So whence the "NDE"? It likely happens during the patient's revival after brain activity has resumed. — 180 Proof

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/727848

That's correct, when there is no measurable brain activity, the brain is not capable of forming new memories. So, the conclusion is that either the memory was formed after their revival, or there is something else going on, viz., they're actually having an out-of-body experience. Now the question is, why would we conclude that they're actually having an OBE? Simple, if the time of the supposed NDE memories are correlated with particular conversations and actions of those around the body when the brain is showing no activity, then the memories are not formed after the patients revival. We don't form memories of things we haven't experienced. If there was a conversation X, that happened at T1, and T1 is exactly when the brain was not functioning, then there is no good reason that we know of to suppose that the memory happened after the revival, how does that even make sense? This is why NDEs or OBEs are so puzzling. Even if we speculate that maybe the brain is having activity that we aren't able to measure, it's just a guess, there's no reason to believe this. Unless there is some other reasonable explanation of how this could happen, it would seem to follow that the memories were formed while in the OBE state and when there was no brain activity. There are just too many confirmed reports of this happening to write them off as something other than what they are, viz., OBEs.

Thanks, subscribed. Your veracity in research certainly seems strong, and the out-of-hand dismissals of fundamentalists like @180 Proof only point to the veracity of the research. Keep on. I personally would like to see specific literature that you're referencing for your research. Peer reviewed studies linked, etc.

... out-of-hand dismissals of fundamentalists like 180 Proof — Noble Dust

:smirk: This ad hominem must mean my criticism has struck a raw nerve in you wishful (magical) thinkers. So what kind of "fundie" am I / are we supposed to be, ND?

Come on, that's not an ad hominem. Fallacies are related to arguments, if the argument uses a personal attack, say, in one of its premises, then it's an ad hominem. If someone says you're an idiot, as an opinion, it's not a fallacy, it's certainly not conducive to a good response, and doesn't help with trying to get to the truth, but it's not fallacious, again, unless it's part of an argument.

True, that was an ad hominem, to which I apologize, although I would continue to describe your attacks on Sam's ideas as fundamentalist.

No nerve was struck, and I'm not a "magical {wishful} thinker", although that's certainly an ad hominem on your part.

As to your fundie type, Karen Armstrong describes fundamentalists in "The Battle For God" as those who are disenfranchised from a tradition that is being taken away by the modern world. In your case, what's being taken away is the tradition of the strident materialism of the first half of the century, if I'm not mistaken. :wink:

My attempts at a 180proof-ian idiolect were grossly foiled by my failed attempts at forum formatting. Imagine a lot more bolded and underlined type in my post above.

Well, I've never subscribed to the early twenthieth century "tradition of strident materialism" and my criticisms of the "NDE & OBE" craze isn't a reaction to anything "being taken away" or threatened. On this site dedicated to critical reasoning and dialectic, I'm just pointing out as I see it, and as succinctly as I can, why @Sam26 et al's claims are not even false.

"Researchers publish consensus statement for the study of recalled experiences surrounding death"

"A multidisciplinary team of national and international leaders, led by Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, director of the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Research Program at NYU Langone, have published "Guidelines and standards for the study of death and recalled experiences of death," a multidisciplinary consensus statement and proposed future directions in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

This study, which examined the accumulated scientific evidence to date, represents the first-ever peer-reviewed consensus statement for the scientific study of recalled experiences surrounding death.

The researchers on the study represent many medical disciplines, including the neurosciences, critical care, psychiatry, psychology, social sciences, and humanities, and represent many of the world's most respected academic institutions including Harvard University, Baylor University, the University of California, Riverside, the University of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, the Medical College of Wisconsin, the University Hospital Southampton, and King's College, London."


https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220413/Researchers-publish-consensus-statement-for-the-study-of-recalled-experiences-surrounding-death.aspx

A press release isn't a peer-reviewed scientific study of repeatable experiments or observations. Isaac Newton was also an alchemist, y'know. :sparkle: :roll:

True, but if you want the complete article you're going to have to pay a minimum of $15. It's at the following link:

https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/nyas.14740

My own study isn't dependent on what a group of scientists say about this or that, although obviously it helps. My study is more of an epistemological study, and what we can know apart from any scientific investigation. It seems clear that we can know many things apart from what science tells us, just using basic logic, testimonial evidence, and common sensory experience. The notion that we always have to appeal to some scientific investigation to tell us what's true or false, is false on its face. Furthermore, it diminishes other ways of acquiring knowledge.

I've just read the full article. Perhaps you can clear up what seems, for me, the major stumbling block. Brain cells take hours to die from anoxia. Since NDEs are only recorded in those who've been resuscitated, by definition, their brain cells still had some capacity, they were dead according to cardiopulmonary measures, but there's no reason to assume their neurological system had no function.

Have NDEs been recorded in people inside fMRI, or with EEG?

The notion that we always have to appeal to some scientific investigation to tell us what's true or false is just false on its face. — Sam26

True, but death/coma is, in these cases, scientifically measured. If we relieve ourselves of the truth of such an assessment, then it's just as easy to say the survivors weren't dead (or near dead). In other words, nothing remotely unusual is happening here at all absent of a scientific expectation of mental activity in anoxic conditions.

All the reports seem to show (I haven't read a lot) is some people report weird experiences in traumatic circumstances. It only becomes noteworthy if we learn these traumatic experiences were all 'near death'. But we only know they were 'near death' using a scientific investigation of their biology.

It seems a little cherry-picking to accept a scientific definition of 'near death' to categorise these events, but then reject it when categorising what counts as neurological activity.