:grin:

If 90% (likely more) of people that are clinically dead and will likely stay dead without medical intervention don't have NDEs, how can it not be considered that 10% are imagining an experience that is only imagined? If the body is uninhabitable to some type of "spirit body" why wouldn't OBEs be much more the standard?

:up:

Is my question unreasonable? The spirit wouldn't leave the body unless it was in rough shape? I truly want to believe in conscious existence after physical death. But there seems to be a lot of space between those that believe NDEs are evidence of that, and what I perceive as the majority of those in this forum.

I have no view on the subject as I haven't looked at any of the evidence. It may be that evidence supports a number of interpretations.

Possibly, but I think people generally go with one or the opposite.

But testimonial evidence on this topic is old hat, and is completely inconclusive since the body of testimony RE NDEs is nevertheless consistent with the hallucination hypothesis- cognitive mechanisms like false memory being well-established at this point. — busycuttingcrap

First, this comment is not true, and anyone with just a little understanding of hallucinations would know it. I've addressed this before, many times, NDEs are not consistent with hallucinations. There have been studies from Harvard, Baylor, UC Riverside, UVA, Virginia Commonwealth University, the Medical College of Wisconsin, the University Hospital Southampton, and King’s College in London that confirm this. Hallucinations are person relative, which is one of the main characteristics that separate them from veridical experiences. Hallucinations are disjointed with generally no consistent narrative between patients, and the memories when compared with NDEs don't have the same clarity of recall (there have been many memory studies). People who recall their NDE, recall it with a clarity that is at least as clear, probably more so, than veridical experiences; and the memories tend to be just as clear many years later. Many NDErs also claim that the NDE is more real than their everyday experiences, this is not the case with hallucinations, dreams, delusions, etc. Moreover, if you look at what causes hallucinations, brain injury, lack of oxygen to the brain, certain illnesses, drugs, etc., this is not what you generally find in NDEs. NDEs also happen across a wide spectrum of experiences, not just near death. Patients who have had a hallucination tend to be much more agitated and belligerent, which is definitely not generally the case with NDEs. NDEs, in the majority of cases are positive, there are a small percentage that are negative, but generally speaking they tend to be positive. So, again, it is not well-established that NDEs are hallucinations or false memories.

And I'm not sure why you're hyper-focused on the word "irreversible" here since that was beside the point. One thing we would expect to see, if NDEs were veridical and evidence of consciousness absent a physical body and/or life after the physical death of the body, is the occasional ability to perceive some piece of information or evidence, during the event, that can be verified as veridical and would not be available otherwise. And this doesn't happen (there have been studies that did precisely this, and returned a negative result, including studies sympathetic to NDEs such as the AWARE study). But then, if you truly are familiar with the data, and not just the data you think confirms your pre-existing position, you already knew that. Right? — busycuttingcrap

I’m not hyper-focused on “irreversible.” It was in response to 180 Proof that this came up.

The statement that people are not reporting verifiable information while in their NDE is blatantly false. Good grief, if you have read even a small portion of the many NDE accounts, and the thousands that have be corroborated, you would not be making such a silly statement.

This last part is laughable, you clearly have not read the Aware study, and if you had, then you’re being disingenuous. The study was inconclusive. Although there was one patient who did give accurate information. My view is that this study doesn’t give strong evidence for or against NDEs. If you’re going to claim that I’m not familiar with the data, you better get your information correct. I’ve been studying NDEs, not just reading a paper here and there, for well over 17 years. I know the data. If you’re going to challenge me on the data, then you better get your facts straight.

By the way, welcome back.

I tried to answer more questions, but there appears to be something wrong with the site.

It looks like the problem was my browser.

Is my question unreasonable? The spirit wouldn't leave the body unless it was in rough shape? I truly want to believe in conscious existence after physical death. But there seems to be a lot of space between those that believe NDEs are evidence of that, and what I perceive as the majority of those in this forum. — TiredThinker

Your question isn't unreasonable. There are many reasons/causes that contribute to why only 10% (estimate) are reporting NDEs. Some people are afraid to report them, they're worried that people won't take them seriously. Many times there are things that interfere with the memories, such as the use of drugs, etc, You shouldn't, in my estimation, just throw out the reports of the 10% because others aren't remembering or even having an NDE. You should look at the 10%, which is a huge number by the way, and listen to what their reporting. Just as in everyday testimonial evidence there is going to be a certain amount of inconsistency. However, there is also going to be a certain amount of consistency if it's reflecting a real experience, i.e., veridical. The OBE happens almost without exception, feeling of peace and love, feeling like their finally home, seeing deceased loved ones, going through a tunnel or some passage way, seeing their body from the third-person perspective, etc, etc. This is true from culture to culture. There are inconsistencies also, just as with normal experiences. Every experience we have is unique to an individual, so there are always going to be inconsistencies with testimonial evidence, which is why testimonial evidence in many cases is very weak. However, as I've said many times before in other threads it can also be very strong under the right conditions. My argument in my thread explains this.

When people experience an NDE it isn't necessarily because they are near death or in rough shape, although many are. There are many NDEs that happen apart from being near death, although the majority have while near death.

It's difficult to work through these beliefs, because, especially in forums like this, the majority of people have a wide range of views, and are on average very intelligent. All I can tell you is don't let others, including me, influence what you believe, do your own work, and learn to think for yourself. Also, keep in mind that much of what we believe has nothing to do with good reasoning, it tends to be more psychological, so keep that in mind.

Good Luck.

There is a problem of just what is to be established or refuted? I mean, compare these:

A. I had a clear, sane and reliably reported perception of conversing with my dead grandfather.
B. I was conversing with my dead grandfather.

Verifiable 'A' s are interesting enough but do not necessarily count as evidence for 'B'. For B, I'm not sure what would count as evidence.

I'm not going to say much more about these experiences. I've already written quite a bit in my thread.

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

How many people would you imagine have had NDEs? According to Dr. Bruce Greyson they pretty much all tell about their experience to everyone like a preacher and their behaviors in life are ever changed (sounds like for the better). The only exception he mentions are the scary NDEs which he says are few. I can't imagine being quiet about something so profound that seems so real.

Where have you found the NDEs testimonials? And what Harvard study concerning hallucinating?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sPGZSC8odIU

This seemed just about as thorough as they get.

I also found it laughable, your hectoring people about not being acquainted with the relevant data when you clearly are guilty of same; I'm glad you agree. It sounds you're looking exclusively at sources or studies that support your pre-determined conclusion here (or else are engaging in pot/kettle shenanigans by accusing me of being disingenous).

In any case, the fact that subjects of NDE's/OBEs have never been able to provide corroborating evidence that would only be accessible if the experience was veridical- as in the AWARE study (which you apparently need to re-read), which reported a negative result on this particular feature of their study- is probably the strongest empirical argument against NDEs, since it is something we would strongly expect on the supposition that the experiences are real (and so its absence constitutes strong contrary evidence). Then again, citing empirical evidence against such a philosophically dubious proposition is probably giving this topic more credit than it really deserves; NDEs belong in the same category as astral projection, demonic possession, and other forms of squishy spiritualist mumbo-jumbo.

:up:

Can I DM you? I would really like your references to NDEs and the Harvard study concerning hallucinations you mentioned.

Anyone else in this forum take an active interest in NDEs?