An interesting shared NDE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-jqDHMQp_s

Or is it inferred from recognizing or interpreting the experience as a typical near death experience because one has seen alleged near death experiences depicted or described? — jkop

Generally, there must be an 'actual' near death-ness to the experience. However, there isn't a 'typical' experience so it seems pretty shoddy to even posit this as a way to explicate some kind of after-death consciousness. Seems, prima facie, not relevant.

If there were some kind of proto-typical experience (where you could calibrate for cultural baggage and get roughly the same form as with some psychedelics) then we'd get somehwere. As it is, they are closer to drug-type experiences than much else - with even less homogenaiety!

I was a little surprised to find you had not addressed my response to you. I linked you a nice article and addressed your points. To ignore someone who does this and repeat what you spoke about earlier is avoidance, and an indicator that you don't have the answers to the previous points.

But if you'll sum up your points, I'll sum up why they don't work again.

My view of epistemology is that there are several ways of acquiring knowledge that aren’t dependent on a scientific approach (experimentation, data collection, and peer-reviewed papers). — Sam26

True. This is induction. And there are ways to evaluate whether some inductions are more cogent than other inductions.

he three epistemological elements of my argument include logic, sensory experience, and testimonial evidence. These three ways of acquiring knowledge are sufficient in themselves to make a reasonable conclusion that consciousness survives death. — Sam26

No, they are not.

1. Logic indicates you are making an induction, not a reasonable conclusion. Logic also indicates per the article that I linked, that the existence of NDE's does not mean that there was evidence of actual death at the time the person had the vision/dream.

2. Sensory experience has been disproven by the fact people can sink in and out of consciousness in anesthesia, and it has not been conclusively pin pointed when exactly a person had a NDE. It is not that NDE's do not happen, its that there's no indicator they are actual experiences after brain death. To conclude there is consciousness after death, one must have an example of consciousness after actual death and a return to life.

3. You only conclude a bias of testimonial evidence. You do not include the majority of cases in which people do not have NDE's when in similar near death experiences. You do not include the nightmares, or the visions of things that do not exist. You cherry pick nice and positive experiences then say, "They're all like that." They are all not. When taken as a whole, NDE's are very much like dreams and minimal conscious processing.

I’m not claiming that our knowledge in this case is known with absolute certainty, just as most of our knowledge isn’t known with absolute certainty. I’m claiming that the evidence is known with a high degree of certainty. — Sam26

Incorrect. The problem is your ignore all the counter inductions that have higher cogency. How do you explain that the majority do not have NDEs? How do you explain the NDEs that don't fit in with family and friends? Or the massive evidence that the brain is your mind, and that without the brain, there is no mind? You take a one sided biased approach and cut out any competing material, and of course it seems reasonable. That's not rational or a strong inductive argument. That's a desire you're trying to rationalize.

This objective component also dispels the notion that the experience is a hallucination, delusion, dream, lack of oxygen, etc. — Sam26

Not in the least. You have had opinions, but this is flat out wrong. In no way have these been ruled out and are strong competing inductions.

And to think that someone can point to some brain activity to show that it’s the brain that creates consciousness is similar to pointing to a component in a radio to show that what you’re listening to is confined to the radio. It doesn't follow. — Sam26

Then how do we artificially put people in comas? Or use anesthesia? Or demonstrate how alcohol poisoning can cause a person to black out? Or the fact that we have never seen consciousness in any form other than a brain?

Another important point is that many of the people who have NDEs report that their experience is not diminished, which is what you might expect with a brain that isn’t getting enough oxygen or blood, in fact, it is heightened. By heightened I mean their sensory experiences are much sharper, they see colors that they haven’t seen before, and their vision is reported to be expanded (360-degree vision) in many cases. — Sam26

You don't have senses when you are unconscious. Your brain takes sensory data and interprets it. Seeing colors you haven't experienced before is not unexpected when your brain is going into survival mode and trying to interpret what is happening. You can't see in 360 degrees, but your brain can envision it.

In short, you have an inductive argument, but it has serious flaws. It also does no better than competing inductive arguments which to my mind, have far less flaws. You have a self-confidence in your argument, but self-confidence and a feeling that it is right, does not make it right. You need to look at the counters and find some answers to those. Otherwise, you're just peddling a fantasy, and no one wants to be that person.

it is impossible for life to continue after death? — Philosophim

By definition. Death is the end of living. There should be no debate.

Those who cling to the possibility, aren't thinking about life. Whether consciously or not, they are thinking that "consciousness" might continue. And not some idea of consciousness which we might share with the rest of the planet,* but the Subjective mind, and really just the Subject that Mind intermittently constructs and projects.

But not only is that impossible because that process doesn't work without the fleshy infrastructure. But that process is empty of what they think it holds while it's functioning: feelings. The body supplies that. So if words survive after the death of the individual without need of the body, then Ok. That's what we generally call history. You die and we still talk about you. But without the body's feelings, you won't "enjoy" the survival. So "you" will quickly drop away, having no reference to reality, and all that is left is history.


*e.g., an aware-ing of living and its sensations (including sense of inner images), drives (including for us bondings), movements and feelings. Maybe one could argue this organic consciousness pervades nature, is nature, and thus, yah, in that sense there is life Neverending, just moving. But that's not what they want. Is it?

By definition. Death is the end of living. There should be no debate. — ENOAH

Yes. I understand the sentiment to want there to be life after death. But that sentiment can be dangerous to those who spend their life looking for its truth. Even if there is some afterlife, which is by all rational evaluation impossible, it is best to live this life as if there is no continuation after. You only get one shot at this life with who you are. Don't waste it on fantasies.

:up:

Sounds like you describe a more Buddhists afterlife. No memories or feelings. Just karma essentially.

No doubt Buddhism is in it somewhere in some degree. But I don't look at it as Buddhist, but as obvious. I'm not often that confident. But this puzzles me.

Unless we are speaking of a mythological idea of dualism, like a soul, I can't see any basis in an afterlife.

As I said, life ends, so it's not life in this afterlife. If there's any evidence or even decent hypotheses about there being a non-material "aspect" of our natural being, then that evidence or hypothesis would also have to prove/reason that this non-material aspect produces and experiences our Narratives. But we are justifiably certain that the feelings, sensations, drives and movements, are organic. So the Narratives, on our non material natures, would be empty and serve no function; like a good novel when it's closed and sitting on the shelf.

Moreover, Ockhams razor. Why an immaterial soul constructing and projecting the Narrative? Because body feels a certain way when the Subject is projected, and we end up wanting to cling to this image. So philosophers, poets, mystics and theologians have gone to pains projecting hypotheses that keep the Subject separate from what becomes reduced to a lump of flesh, leading to this idea of the possibility of its perpetuity after the flesh dies.

But it's way more simple to say body--particularly and only the human body--has developed this unique, autonomous system of images in its brain, which have the effect of displacing the organic aware-ing of sensations, feelings, drives, and movements, with stories, perceptions, emotions, love and power, and the idea of free wilful movements. When the body ends, so do these images.

Where Buddhism likely sees in this admittedly reconstructed view of afterlife, is it agrees that this Subject we cling to is just a projection, never was real to begin with, let alone the idea of its survival. And, therefore it also agrees that if we really must entertain any discussion of an afterlife, it's not going to be what the Subject causes the body to (by having specific feelings triggered) "desire", i.e., the Subject itself. If there is an afterlife it has to be the same as the before life, some pervasive aware-ing in?of? nature without the cloak of human signifiers. "Buddha Nature," too deserves the same treatment if it is real and all pervading, it has to be an aware-ing in/of nature, not some mystical, mythical, or even metaphysical entity which we can only construct out of our images.

I was a little surprised to find you had not addressed my response to you. I linked you a nice article and addressed your points. To ignore someone who does this and repeat what you spoke about earlier is avoidance, and an indicator that you don't have the answers to the previous points. — Philosophim

First of all, my health and age have affected my responses. So, your conclusion that I'm avoiding you and don't have answers to your posts is incorrect. There's nothing that you've posted that's difficult to answer, and much of what you've posted shows a lack of understanding of the subject of NDEs, even the paper you posted can be addressed, although it would take more time.

he three epistemological elements of my argument include logic, sensory experience, and testimonial evidence. These three ways of acquiring knowledge are sufficient in themselves to make a reasonable conclusion that consciousness survives death.
— Sam26

No, they are not.

1. Logic indicates you are making an induction, not a reasonable conclusion. Logic also indicates per the article that I linked, that the existence of NDE's does not mean that there was evidence of actual death at the time the person had the vision/dream. — Philosophim

First, I've given the criteria of a good inductive argument, and based on those criteria the inductive conclusion is overwhelmingly reasonable. (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/912262)

There is a reason why these experiences are called Near-Death and not death unless we're talking about clinical death, which is an accepted term (clinical death) in the medical community. People can continue to say that it's not death, and that's fine, but the experiences they're having coupled with the corroboration give power to their experiences. Not all NDEs happen when people are near death, some have happened quite spontaneously.

2. Sensory experience has been disproven by the fact people can sink in and out of consciousness in anesthesia, and it has not been conclusively pin pointed when exactly a person had a NDE. It is not that NDE's do not happen, its that there's no indicator they are actual experiences after brain death. To conclude there is consciousness after death, one must have an example of consciousness after actual death and a return to life. — Philosophim

Just because people can sink in and out of consciousness when anesthetized doesn't invalidate the experience. There have been plenty of NDEs that have happened when there is no measurable brain activity (Pam's e.g. is one). There have also been experiences where people have described what they are seeing on various machines (e.g. in an operating room) at particular times during their experience, so it's fairly easy to know based on what they're seeing that it happened at T1 or T2.

I don't know about you, but if someone tells me that they see X during their experience and it's corroborated by doctors, nurses, staff, and family members, then that's a veridical experience. You can keep denying what millions of people are saying because you're entrenched in a materialistic worldview, but it won't change the facts. Most people generally know the difference between a real (veridical) experience and one that is not. If this wasn't so we couldn't generally rely on our sensory experiences.

Your responses demonstrate that you haven't studied these experiences, and your responses clearly show that. I've been researching this subject for about 17 years and have heard most of the counterarguments and they are some of the weakest counterarguments I've ever heard.

3. You only conclude a bias of testimonial evidence. You do not include the majority of cases in which people do not have NDE's when in similar near death experiences. You do not include the nightmares, or the visions of things that do not exist. You cherry pick nice and positive experiences then say, "They're all like that." They are all not. When taken as a whole, NDE's are very much like dreams and minimal conscious processing. — Philosophim

I don't know of any other testimonial evidence that would counter NDEs. Many people who are in a similar condition don't have an NDE but that hardly invalidates all the millions of people who have had the experience. That's just the nature of our experiences, some people who have similar experiences give different reports but that doesn't invalidate all other reports.

I don't cherry-pick anything, I've examined many thousands of reports that have been given from around the world and have concluded that consciousness survives death. Again, I'm not aware of NDEs that don't generally confirm an OBE, so I don't know what you're referring to.

Many NDEs haven't been studied so I pick the ones that have been studied, but that's not cherry-picking, and here's the rub, the ones that have been studied confirm what others have been saying about their experience. Any examination of testimonial evidence would do the same. So, your cherry-picking allegation is weak, to say the least.

This is all I'm going to respond to because I've addressed most of the other points you've made in other parts of the thread. What seems strange to me is that you seem to ignore so many other studies and peer-reviewed material, which at least acknowledges that many of these questions are open to many scientists (open for them, not for me). You seem to think it's an open-and-shut case. Nonsense.

I stand by my conclusion that consciousness survives death. I'll go so far as to say that consciousness is the basis for all reality and that what we are here (being human) is not our essential nature. I'll add a further point, i.e., we are here having a human experience, but it's temporary.

Sorry I can't respond to everything or everybody, I just don't have the energy nor the inclination. I'll respond and post from time to time but that's about it. Sometimes I get spurts of energy and will respond more often but that doesn't happen much.

Thanks for the effort @Philosophim

First, I've given the criteria of a good inductive argument, and based on those criteria the inductive conclusion is overwhelmingly reasonable. (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/912262) — Sam26

I read your argument, but it does not support your conclusion that consciousness survives death. You call your argument "inductive"; I think it would be better labeled "abductive" - because you are proposing a explanatory hypothesis that fits the facts associated with NDEs. Analyzed this way, we could consider whether or not your hypothesis is the best explanation for the available facts. You sidestep this, by simply claiming your conclusion is a reasonable inductive inference. I don't think it is reasonable, but this is shown most easily by comparing it to alternative hypotheses that better explain the available facts.

For example, most other NDEs are explainable as a form of dreaming. Relatively few out of body experiences lack reasonable natural explanations, but even if they are veridical - they are explainable as telepathy or clairvoyance


You don't consider the abundant evidence that mental activity depends on brain activity; NDEs do not demonstrate a counterexample. I previously pointed out that "no measureable brain activity" does not mean NO brain activity. So your explanatory hypothesis depends on the ad hoc assumption that mental activity can occur without brain activity.

Finally, I can't help but think you may be influenced by a desire to live on, beyond death. This may be influencing your choice of explanatory hypothesis, and the subset of evidence you choose to consider.

So, your conclusion that I'm avoiding you and don't have answers to your posts is incorrect. There's nothing that you've posted that's difficult to answer, and much of what you've posted shows a lack of understanding of the subject of NDEs, even the paper you posted can be addressed, although it would take more time. — Sam26

If they are not difficult to answer, simply answer them.

First, I've given the criteria of a good inductive argument, and based on those criteria the inductive conclusion is overwhelmingly reasonable. — Sam26

And about my notes that you have several other competing inductive arguments out there that contradict and invalidate yours? I never said you didn't make an inductive argument. I demonstrated it doesn't rise above other more reasonable inductive arguments.

I don't know about you, but if someone tells me that they see X during their experience and it's corroborated by doctors, nurses, staff, and family members, then that's a veridical experience. You can keep denying what millions of people are saying because you're entrenched in a materialistic worldview, but it won't change the facts. — Sam26

Are you understanding my points? I never denied people don't have these experiences. I denied that they logically lead to a conclusion that there was life after death, both rationally, and do not hold inductively when compared to other stronger inductive arguments that show our consciousness does not live on after death.

Your responses demonstrate that you haven't studied these experiences, and your responses clearly show that. — Sam26

I have, and your conclusions about them do not hold water. They are fun, but do not lead to the conclusion that there is life after death when competing with other inductive arguments that demonstrate we do not. You are only looking at one side, and have not given me evidence of any other.

Again, I'm not aware of NDEs that don't generally confirm an OBE, so I don't know what you're referring to. — Sam26

I noted my Aunt had a near death experience during surgery. She felt like she was being tortured by demons. We didn't call up the NDE people to report it. She died a few weeks later btw. She's gone forever.

Here's an article on NDEs that aren't so nice. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6173534/
But I haven't heard you mention anything like these. Either you've cherry picked, haven't looked hard enough.

How about the studies in which they tested people's experiences by causing them to enter into unconsciousness and similar situations?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-near-death-experiences-reveal-about-the-brain/

"Scientists have videotaped, analyzed and dissected the loss and subsequent recovery of consciousness in highly trained individuals—U.S. test pilots and NASA astronauts in centrifuges during the cold war (recall the scene in the 2018 movie First Man of a stoic Neil Armstrong, played by Ryan Gosling, being spun in a multiaxis trainer until he passes out). At around five times the force of gravity, the cardiovascular system stops delivering blood to the brain, and the pilot faints. About 10 to 20 seconds after these large g-forces cease, consciousness returns, accompanied by a comparable interval of confusion and disorientation (subjects in these tests are obviously very fit and pride themselves on their self-control).

The range of phenomena these men recount may amount to “NDE lite”—tunnel vision and bright lights; a feeling of awakening from sleep, including partial or complete paralysis; a sense of peaceful floating; out-of-body experiences; sensations of pleasure and even euphoria; and short but intense dreams, often involving conversations with family members, that remain vivid to them many years afterward. These intensely felt experiences, triggered by a specific physical insult, typically do not have any religious character (perhaps because participants knew ahead of time that they would be stressed until they fainted)."

Or

"Many neurologists have noted similarities between NDEs and the effects of a class of epileptic events known as complex partial seizures. "

"More than 150 years later neurosurgeons are able to induce such ecstatic feelings by electrically stimulating part of the cortex called the insula in epileptic patients who have electrodes implanted in their brain. This procedure can help locate the origin of the seizures for possible surgical removal. Patients report bliss, enhanced well-being, and heightened self-awareness or perception of the external world. Exciting the gray matter elsewhere can trigger out-of-body experiences or visual hallucinations. This brute link between abnormal activity patterns—whether induced by the spontaneous disease process or controlled by a surgeon’s electrode—and subjective experience provides support for a biological, not spiritual, origin. The same is likely to be true for NDEs."

What seems strange to me is that you seem to ignore so many other studies and peer-reviewed material, which at least acknowledges that many of these questions are open to many scientists (open for them, not for me). — Sam26

Who?

Sorry I can't respond to everything or everybody, I just don't have the energy nor the inclination — Sam26

It sounds like you don't have a lot of time left. I've been harsh on the subject material, but not on you.
You may not see it as a gift, but really, it is. You will die. I will die. And that will be it. So don't waste your time. Fill it with family, friends, loved ones. Explore, fulfill your last curiosities, and do the things you've always wanted to do. Because after its over, its done. That's why we come here. To really think about things and sift the lies, illusions, and artificial hopes from reality. A life lived real is a really lived life. Good luck and enjoy your time.

First, just a word about the concept of death, this concept is used in a variety of contexts and it’s not important to my argument because NDEs can and have happened when people are not experiencing a life-threatening situation. However, most do happen in life-threatening situations. That said, most of the time when I refer to death I’m referring to clinical death, viz, when a doctor would pronounce someone dead.

It’s the experience itself, the claim that people have had an OBE, and their experiences while having an OBE, which is the central point of my argument. It’s what people see during their NDE that supports their belief that they had an OBE. What constitutes an NDE are certain common characteristics laid out in the Greyson scale in the following link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271857657_The_Near-Death_Experience_Scale (Citation: Greyson, B. (2007). The near-death experience as a focus of clinical attention. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 195(10), 883-890.)

There have also been comparative studies done by Dr. Parnia (professor of Medicine at the NYU Langone Medical Center). This study (“Aware—AWAreness during Resuscitation—A Prospective study” published in Resuscitation.) used the Greyson scale as a guide to compare the experiences of cardiac arrest survivors and whether they were genuine NDEs as opposed to hallucinations or dream-like experiences.

Other studies, viz., by Thonnard et al. (2013) source “Characteristics of NDE memories as compared to real or imagined NDEs” published in PLoS ONE explored the neurological basis of NDEs and also used the Greyson scale to determine if the memories were more consistent with real memories or with the memories of imagined events.

So, the Greyson scale has been used as a reliable source for many studies to determine between genuine NDEs and other phenomena.

Along with the Greyson scale, there have been a variety of other studies that show the common characteristics of NDEs. These studies include, but are not limited to the following:

1) Noyes and Slymen’s Near-Death Experience Scale (Russell Noyes and Donald Slymen)
2) Ring’s Weighted Core Experience Index (Kenneth Ring)
3) Zaleski’s Narrative Analysis (Carol Zasleski)
4) Moody’s Common Elements of NDEs (Raymond Moody)
5) Kellehear’s Cross-Cultural Studies (Allan Kellehear)


Besides the common characteristic studies that have been done from a variety of sources, other studies confirm the objective nature of NDEs and hence the veridical nature of these experiences. Many of these individuals were in a state where normal perceptions should have been impossible or very difficult to explain.

Are you understanding my points? I never denied people don't have these experiences. I denied that they logically lead to a conclusion that there was life after death, both rationally, and do not hold inductively when compared to other stronger inductive arguments that show our consciousness does not live on after death. — Philosophim

The question is, “Do you understand my points?” If people are having these experiences, i.e., they are veridical, then my conclusion follows based on the numbers, variety, and truth of testimonials (corroborative evidence and consistency of reports). I used the word veridical for a reason, because if you’re acknowledging that the experiences are real (veridical), then how can you deny the reports? Unless you’re simply saying that the experiences are real but not veridical. If you’re saying that they are veridical but that they can be explained in another way, then you haven’t given good reasons to suppose that’s the case. The paper you cited doesn’t take into account much of the research that has been done and oversimplifies the NDE research. As I said, I’ve been studying these accounts for many years and have read many of the counterarguments, most try to explain the memory reports in very dubious ways, which I and many others have found wanting. Many of the memory counterarguments are only speculating about how these memories might have occurred.

To argue that my argument doesn’t “…logically lead to [my] conclusion…” you have to demonstrate that the premises aren’t true, and you’ve failed miserably at that. At best your inductive arguments are weak, even the paper you cited is weak. Moreover, you seem to ignore the many studies that have been done to support the truth of my premises. We can go back and forth about the research, but I don’t think it will solve whose research is better, which is why I go back to the testimonial reports. For most people, after listening to many reports, and I have read and listened to more than 5000 reports, they speak for themselves. Any normal person after hearing corroborative and consistent testimonial evidence is going to concede to the veridical nature of the reports which leads to the conclusion (whether you do or not, it doesn’t matter) that consciousness is not confined to the brain, and the contention that consciousness is not limited to the body.

Another important point is the nature of consciousness itself, i.e., can consciousness be explained by simply appealing to brain functions? The answer for me at least, and for many other scientists and philosophers, is no. I like many of the points David Chalmers raises in his article The Puzzle of Consciousness in which he distinguishes between understanding many of the cognitive functions, such as perception, memory, and learning (the easy problem of consciousness), which much can be explained through science; and the problem of trying to address our subjective experiences (the hard problem of consciousness), viz., what it’s like to be conscious. It’s not just awareness but that we are aware of being aware (my point).

In Nagel’s 1974 paper, What Is It Like to Be a Bat Nagel also explores subjective experiences and the nature of consciousness. He concludes that consciousness has an irreducible aspect, and I agree based on my studies which go beyond what I’ve given in this thread. He further concludes that the physicalist approach to consciousness is not sufficient to address our subjective experiences and that we need a fundamentally new approach to concepts and methods. This paper agrees with many of Chalmers' points.

Chalmers goes on to explain that there is a gap between what we can understand and explain via physical science and trying to explain our subjective experiences. This is why some argue that our subjective experiences are an illusion (my point not Chalmers), because of the difficulty in explaining subjective experience. Chalmers concludes that although we have made significant progress in our understanding of the easy problem of consciousness, the hard problem remains. It’s a profound mystery. I agree and would point out that although I believe it can be logically demonstrated that consciousness is not a brain function, we are still at a loss to explain the nature of consciousness. I speculate that consciousness is the creative force behind the universe and that consciousness resides in a place where the laws of consciousness and creation are much different from the laws of this universe.

Chalmers proposes that there are three possible ways to solve the hard problem of consciousness. First is the idea that even if we don’t have all the answers presently, sometime in the future science will be able to explain consciousness. This is the optimistic view of reductionism, given enough time the problem will be solved. Chalmers also points out a second way which he refers to as mysterianism, which is a form of materialism or physicalism. This is the idea that consciousness is a physical process, but we will never understand it. It’s a mystery. And third is dualism, which just distinguishes, basically, between the mental and the physical, and the mental encompasses consciousness. Chalmers also makes the point that all of the work in neuroscience only addresses the easy problem of consciousness. The hard problem of consciousness is barely addressed, if at all. Most research doesn’t even come close to addressing the hard problem, and this should at least give you pause about what can be said about the point of origin of consciousness. To claim that we know how consciousness arises is simply false, we’re not even close to answering this question.

I believe that NDEs do show that consciousness is not confined to the brain, but this doesn’t address the problem of what is consciousness. Although I believe consciousness is the source of this reality (our observable universe), I don’t believe we have a clue about the nature of consciousness or its source, if there is a source.

Although this post doesn’t address every question or challenge it gives more information to support my conclusions and raises other considerations.

However, most do happen in life-threatening situations. That said, most of the time when I refer to death I’m referring to clinical death, viz, when a doctor would pronounce someone dead. — Sam26

This is very important. Actual recorded death is not near death. Near death experiences cannot be used as an example for consciousness existing outside of the brain, as the brain would still be alive.

It’s the experience itself, the claim that people have had an OBE, and their experiences while having an OBE. This is the central point of my argument. It’s what people see during their NDE that supports their belief that they had an OBE — Sam26

I am not questioning that people have an out of body experience. The question is whether this out of body experience can be pinpointed at happening at the exact time of brain death, and that it is not merely a vivid dream of consciousness. Not near death, but during brain death. As I've noted, there have been no cases of brain death and NDE time.

What constitutes an NDE are certain common characteristics laid out in the Greyson scale in the following link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271857657_The_Near-Death_Experience_Scale (Citation: Greyson, B. (2007). The near-death experience as a focus of clinical attention. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 195(10), 883-890.) — Sam26

I genuinely appreciate the literature. But I don't think you're understanding what I'm stating again. I'm not denying NDE's happen. No one with even a little bit of medical understanding does. What I'm denying is that they are any proof of consciousness actually leaving the body. As I noted with my last two links, NDE's can be replicated medically by brain stimulation and temporary oxygen deprivation. In no case has there been a confirmation of someone actually seeing their body. A very easy test is once the patient is unconscious, a person places some object or writing behind them where their eyes cannot see. If the person is actually having a real out of body experience, they'll see it. No out of body experience has ever been able to accurately report this.

The question is, “Do you understand my points?” If people are having these experiences, i.e., they are veridical, then my conclusion follows based on the numbers, variety, and truth of testimonials (corroborative evidence and consistency of reports). — Sam26

You can just use the word 'true' instead of veridical, that's fine. No, your conclusion does not follow from NDE's being real. You have to demonstrate the NDE's happen on brain death, that out of body experiences are able to accurately report the way the room was at brain death, and that NDE's cannot be replicated by temporary oxygen deprivation that has little risk of death, or can't be duplicated by stimulating the brain. All of these demonstrate that this is a brain function, not consciousness leaving the brain and coming back in.

Have you ever had a vivid dream before? I ask, because some people don't. A vivid dream can feel incredibly real. I have sometimes come out of dreams thinking that I was in another world. Of course, I wasn't. You have to understand that your brain simulates everything. The light entering your eyes is not vision. The brains interpretation of it and construction is. I can envision things when I shut my eyes and have vivid daydreams. My consciousness is not leaving my brain, its just an aspect of the brain.

Unless you’re simply saying that the experiences are real but not veridical. — Sam26

No, the subjective experience is real. There is no objective demonstration that a person has actually left their body and seen the room as it is changed away from their bodies eyes. There is no objective confirmation that someone's OBE happened during brain death. Just like when I had a vivid dream of fighting a gorilla and woke up, my consciousness did not travel to another dimension where I fought an actual gorilla.

The paper you cited doesn’t take into account much of the research that has been done and oversimplifies the NDE research. As I said, I’ve been studying these accounts for many years and have read many of the counterarguments, most try to explain the memory reports in very dubious ways, which I and many others have found wanting. — Sam26

Feel free to cite some counters then. This is too generic for me and I'll need more details please. Your experience and whether things are wanting are irrelevant, just like my opinions on the matter are irrelevant. Cite facts and studies that demonstrate why or why not NDEs are valid/invalid.

To argue that my argument doesn’t “…logically lead to [my] conclusion…” you have to demonstrate that the premises aren’t true, and you’ve failed miserably at that. — Sam26

No, I don't. You've already done that for me. You're already stated you're using an inductive argument, which by definition, is not true. Its a prediction, or supposition. To have a viable inductive argument, you need to demonstrate why it overrides facts that counter your induction, or demonstrate why its more rational than other competing inductive arguments that have competing or contrasting conclusions with yours.

I have not denied NDE's exist. I've demonstrated that they are not evidence of consciousness surviving the body due to the fact that no OBE's can be objectively confirmed with tests, and we can simulate NDE's at lower levels of trauma with neurology and oxygen deprivation. Not to mention the mounds of medical research that demonstrate you are your brain. Neuroscience, psychadelics, psychiatrics, and even numerous cases of brain trauma have all demonstrated this.

Another important point is the nature of consciousness itself, i.e., can consciousness be explained by simply appealing to brain functions? The answer for me at least, and for many other scientists and philosophers, is no — Sam26

For scientists, this is incorrect. "You are your brain," is the only reasonable scientific conclusion with what we know. People test and hypothesize that there is more, but none of these have borne fruit. A hypothesis is not a scientific conclusion. As for philosophers, yes. You can find a philosopher that will believe almost anything. The question is whether they can give a reasonable argument for their beliefs.

Lets address Chalmers. Yes, I'm very familiar with him.

In Nagel’s 1974 paper, What Is It Like to Be a Bat Nagel also explores subjective experiences and the nature of consciousness. He concludes that consciousness has an irreducible aspect, and I agree based on my studies which go beyond what I’ve given in this thread. He further concludes that the physicalist approach to consciousness is not sufficient to address our subjective experiences and that we need a fundamentally new approach to concepts and methods. — Sam26

Two points:

1. There has been nearly a lifetime of brain research since he published his 1974 paper. We barely had basic computers back then. We have made immense strides. Research neuroscience, not philosophy.

2. You misinterpret what he means by "the physicalist approach to consciousness is not sufficient". Chalmers to this date does not deny that the brain is where consciousness comes from. What he's noting is that our study of the brain in particular to date, cannot be used as a model to explain the subjective experience. Let me explain further.

How you subjectively experience the world, and how a bat subjectively experiences the world are obviously different. Lets say that we further science to the point where we are able to perfectly replicate a bat's brain, and your brain. Can we still be the bat? No. Can we still be you? No. We would ask your brain, "How are you feeling?" and simulated neurons 44-100 would light up. Does that tell us what its like to be the experience itself of neurons 44-100 lighting up? No.

Lets say we objectively knock out the consciousness of your simulated brain by stimulating neurons 1-10. And we can do it every time. Objectively, you're unconscious. But what does it feel like subjectively? We'll never know. Its impossible to be the thing we're studying. That's what Chalmer's nailed. He did not deny in any way that consciousness is not generated from your brain.

The fact we can never objectively know what its like to be a subjective conscious is the hard problem. The idea that consciousness comes from your brain is the easy problem. People confuse this all the time and think that there some rational notion that we are not our brains. It has been confirmed that we are our brains for some time now, and if an inductive argument is going to challenge that, it has a lot more that it needs to tackle then what you've provide.

Although this post doesn’t address every question or challenge it gives more information to support my conclusions and raises other considerations. — Sam26

I may disagree with you, but I appreciate the write up and the citations.

It sounds like you don't have a lot of time left. I've been harsh on the subject material, but not on you.
You may not see it as a gift, but really, it is. You will die. I will die. And that will be it. So don't waste your time. Fill it with family, friends, loved ones. Explore, fulfill your last curiosities, and do the things you've always wanted to do. Because after its over, its done. That's why we come here. To really think about things and sift the lies, illusions, and artificial hopes from reality. A life lived real is a really lived life. Good luck and enjoy your time. — Philosophim

This is a bit funny and a bit condescending, but I got a laugh out of it so that’s good. The illness I alluded to is something I’ve had all my life, but it’s not like I’m on my deathbed. Of course, turning 74 in September does mean my life is getting shorter and shorter. I’m not afraid of death, and to give me advice on living and dying is quite condescending as if I don’t understand what’s important. I guess I need advice since I don’t think about such things (ha-ha). You probably mean well, so I don’t take offense.

I find it curious that some people think that people who believe there is an afterlife are somehow afraid that their existence is coming to an end, so we grasp at straws (beliefs) to comfort ourselves. We can always go back and forth on the psychological factors contributing to our beliefs, but none of us escape this problem. The psychological reasons/causes for what we all believe are very strong, often overriding what’s logical. I considered myself a Christian for many years and what can be a more powerful belief than thinking you’re a child of God going to heaven and escaping hell? I rejected the belief (not all the beliefs, but the resurrection, that Christ was God, hell, demons, etc.) after reconsidering the evidence. That means that many of the people in my family, friends, and others would look at me in quite a different way. I’ve never been afraid to go against the grain, and such is the case with my beliefs in the afterlife. I would say that I don’t care what others think, but that’s not quite true, I do care what some people think, but the point is that it’s difficult to buck any system of beliefs that have dominated one’s life for years. The point of saying this is that my life belies the idea that I would hold to such beliefs for what you seem to suggest.

The only thing that matters to me is the evidence or good reasons that support my argument, not some fear of ceasing to exist, fear of hell, or some other fear. That said, I’m not superhuman, of course I have certain fears. For example, I don’t want to die in agony or some such thing, but I think the actual point of death (that moment) is more peaceful than most people think. And if we cease to exist after the death of the body, so be it, it won’t matter, will it? Of course, I don’t believe that to be the case, in fact, I know it’s not the case.

Finally, your epistemology relies too heavily on the power of science to explain, as if epistemological considerations of science are paramount to knowing something is the case. However, much of what we know is through everyday testimonial evidence, which is why I think this argument is so powerful. We can go back and forth, no it’s not, yes it is, but I think my argument continues to stand as strong evidence for an afterlife.

That said, I appreciate the responses.

I've always wondered why folks who are convinced there is "life after death" do not kill themselves especially when they are healthy and happy. No doubt it's for the same reason fortune-tellers do not win lotteries everyday or put casinos and insurance companies out of business.

I’m not afraid of death, and to give me advice on living and dying is quite condescending as if I don’t understand what’s important. I guess I need advice since I don’t think about such things (ha-ha). You probably mean well, so I don’t take offense. — Sam26

I did not mean it to be condescending. I am a person who has learned over time that you can never assume anything about other people. So I talk to them as if they don't know things, not as a means to insult, but to provide opportunity in case they don't. I am glad you understand how valuable life is. :)

I find it curious that some people think that people who believe there is an afterlife are somehow afraid that their existence is coming to an end, so we grasp at straws (beliefs) to comfort ourselves. — Sam26

Some people think this. Not all. When having a conversation with a stranger, to me its about trying to find the most value out of a conversation. If I know you know the value of life, then I will never mention it again. But if you don't and its not addressed? What good is it to inform a person that there is no afterlife if they don't value the life they live today?

We do not have tone or body language while communicating. All we have is text, and of course our interpretation of that other person's intentions. I have tried to be clear that while I do not believe the argument for consciousness existing post death has any credence, I do not have any issue with YOU.
You've taken the time to present an argument fairly, you've been polite for a conversation that conflicts with our world view, and you've replied to many of my points. These forums should never be an insult or ego fest, but a place where we can talk seriously and truthfully with one another.

The psychological reasons/causes for what we all believe are very strong, often overriding what’s logical. — Sam26

Correct. And I am not an exception to this rule. I too was raised Christian, but through questioning and having honest conversations with many other people, I found that it wasn't viable.

The only thing that matters to me is the evidence or good reasons that support my argument, not some fear of ceasing to exist, fear of hell, or some other fear. — Sam26

Finally, your epistemology relies too heavily on the power of science to explain, as if epistemological considerations of science are paramount to knowing something is the case. However, much of what we know is through everyday testimonial evidence, which is why I think this argument is so powerful. — Sam26

I have formal training in philosophy, I have written many of my own approaches to philosophical problems, and have continued to dabble as a hobby all my life. I was both a math teacher, and now program for a living. My point is that I have a long period of training in life in logical thinking.

Now, I also am aware that it doesn't mean a thing. Its the arguments that stand. You strike me as a thinker in earlier stages of development. This is not an insult to your intelligence. Good thinking for most people takes training. It takes years of work. You can never be satisfied, and I seek to improve in little ways every day.

One problem I see is that you are still stuck on how to correctly use inductive thinking. If you re-read, that's really my focus. Inductive thinking is by definition, not necessarily true. So even the best of inductive arguments is not considered a sound argument, but a supposition, or conjecture at best.
Considering there are several competing conjectures that your inductive argument must address and overcome, its not in a good position.

Second, you're assuming the argument that I'm trying to make instead of really understanding it. I want to re-emphasize again, that I am not questioning whether people experience NDE's or OBEs. If you re-read, you seem to want to re-argue their realness when I've already long accepted that they're real. My point is that a personal experience does not mean strong or conclusive evidence about objective reality.

That's pretty obvious if you take any other scenario besides NDEs. I've dreamt that I've flown before, and its been found in at least one study that 1/3rd of recipients have dreamed of flying. https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/11/dream-flying-says-something-about-how-you-think.html

Now, does that mean that when we dream our consciousness actually travels to another realm where we can fly? No. Its just a common brain activity while we sleep. Personal experience is not evidence of objective reality. Personal experience is out interpretation of objective reality. And just because we interpret reality a certain way, it does not mean it is a certain way. Ever seen an optical illusion? That's our interpretation ability going overdrive, the illusion is not actually happening in reality apart from ourselves.

My emphasis is not on 'science', but deduction and objective testing. Science is a good go to, because articles are peer reviewed. Meaning they must hold to high standards from the rest of the community, and are always open to having their research examined and questioned. We want to believe in the power of induction and personal experience, and while it can be useful in many instances, it also has many known flaws.

So your argument has several problems it needs to solve. How do you reconcile the fact that we can duplicate NDEs in neurology and oxygen deprivation scenarios? How do you reconcile the fact that no OBE has ever been shown to see something that was placed outside of their bodies field of view during the time in which the NDE should be occurring? There are real problems that if not solved, cut the inductive argument that consciousness survives our death into pieces.

So, feel free to try to answer those. If you can, awesome. But not answering those and insisting your inductive argument trumps all others logically isn't true. The current and most logical conclusion we can make with the information we know of today is that consciousness is a function of the brain, and when the brain dies, your consciousness dies as well. Feel free to keep trying to prove it wrong, but you have a lot of work to still do.

You strike me as a thinker in earlier stages of development. This is not an insult to your intelligence. Good thinking for most people takes training. It takes years of work. You can never be satisfied, and I seek to improve in little ways every day. — Philosophim

I guess I have to defend my background in philosophy. If you had researched this forum, you would know that I’m not “…a thinker in earlier stages of development…” I’ve been studying philosophy for over 45 years, with a degree (B.A. in Philosophy). I’m quite familiar with symbolic logic and I know some modal logic which means that I know something about correct reasoning, including how to analyze arguments. In the last 20 years, I’ve spent much of my time studying epistemology, linguistic analysis, and Ludwig Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, especially his final notes called On Certainty. I consider my knowledge of philosophy to be at least the level of someone with a Master’s degree. I started working on my Master’s degree in 1982 but didn’t finish it.

One problem I see is that you are still stuck on how to correctly use inductive thinking. If you re-read, that's really my focus. Inductive thinking is by definition, not necessarily true. So even the best of inductive arguments is not considered a sound argument, but a supposition, or conjecture at best. Considering there are several competing conjectures that your inductive argument must address and overcome, its not in a good position. — Philosophim

Yes, I know that’s your focus, and anyone with a little background in logic knows that inductive reasoning is not necessarily true. Only the conclusions of good deductive arguments follow necessarily. Inductive reasoning is either strong or weak based on the evidence. Most of our reasoning, including science, is inductive. A word about sound arguments (soundness is a property of deductive arguments, it includes validity and the truth of the premises), in logic it’s used as a criterion to describe good deductive arguments, although the truth of the premises of an inductive argument is parallel to soundness in deductive arguments.

Second, you're assuming the argument that I'm trying to make instead of really understanding it. I want to re-emphasize again, that I am not questioning whether people experience NDE's or OBEs. If you re-read, you seem to want to re-argue their realness when I've already long accepted that they're real. My point is that a personal experience does not mean strong or conclusive evidence about objective reality. — Philosophim

I tried to address this in another post, but you seem to ignore what I’m saying. You say the experiences are real, but there are two senses of real involved in my argument. First, real could mean that they are real in the sense that any experience is real, including hallucinations, dreams, delusions, etc. However, I use the word veridical as opposed to real because real isn’t as precise. Most researchers who talk about NDEs, whether for or against, want to answer the question, “Are NDEs veridical?” This is the question at hand.

Now, does that mean that when we dream our consciousness actually travels to another realm where we can fly? No. Its just a common brain activity while we sleep. Personal experience is not evidence of objective reality. Personal experience is out interpretation of objective reality. And just because we interpret reality a certain way, it does not mean it is a certain way. Ever seen an optical illusion? That's our interpretation ability going overdrive, the illusion is not actually happening in reality apart from ourselves. — Philosophim

Your use of real is that the experiences are not veridical (not part of objective reality), i.e., that they are similar to dreams or hallucinations which are real experiences but not veridical. I’ve assumed all along that this is what you probably meant. Also, when I answer your points, I’m trying to address not only you but others who are reading this thread, which is why I point this out.

My emphasis is not on 'science', but deduction and objective testing. Science is a good go to, because articles are peer reviewed. Meaning they must hold to high standards from the rest of the community, and are always open to having their research examined and questioned. We want to believe in the power of induction and personal experience, and while it can be useful in many instances, it also has many known flaws. — Philosophim

You don’t seem to understand that most arguments are inductive (including science), not deductive. Moreover, you have never given a deductive argument. You also dismiss the power of inductive reasoning by saying it has many known flaws. I’m not sure what you mean by “known flaws” apart from it doesn’t give us absolute knowledge. Obviously, weak inductive arguments are flawed because they lack the kind of strength that would give us good reasons to believe their conclusions. Strong inductive reasoning is not flawed in terms of the strength of its conclusion. Most of science is inductive and the paper you cited is also inductive. You don’t seem to have a good background in logic because you fail to give inductive reasoning its proper place in the reasoning process, you, at the very least diminish its power. It is quite obvious that what you said about yourself in terms of dabbling in philosophy is true, and it shows. Philosophy for me is quite beyond being a hobby or something I dabble in.

So even the best of inductive arguments is not considered a sound argument, but a supposition, or conjecture at best. — Philosophim

This is just silly. It doesn’t comport with just a basic understanding of logic. Moreover, again, soundness is a property of deductive arguments because it means that the argument is valid and the premises are true. For someone to say, “You strike me as a thinker in earlier stages of development,” is laughable given these comments on logic.

So your argument has several problems it needs to solve. How do you reconcile the fact that we can duplicate NDEs in neurology and oxygen deprivation scenarios? How do you reconcile the fact that no OBE has ever been shown to see something that was placed outside of their bodies field of view during the time in which the NDE should be occurring? There are real problems that if not solved, cut the inductive argument that consciousness survives our death into pieces. — Philosophim

Just because we can duplicate NDEs, it doesn’t follow that NDEs are not objectively real. It just means we know what things can trigger similar aspects of the NDE. It also just means that the brain plays a role in consciousness as we know it. It doesn’t follow that duplicating NDEs demonstrates that consciousness is solely a construct of the brain.

For someone who claims to have studied NDEs and who continues to say things like, “How do you reconcile the fact that no OBE has ever been shown to see something that was placed outside of their bodies field of view during the time in which the NDE should be occurring?” - is completely mystifying to me. There have been many corroborative NDE accounts of people seeing and hearing things that are nowhere near their bodies. Just a cursory study of NDEs should dispel this belief. You can continue to deny that this is the case, but there are just too many accounts that contradict this belief. People have heard conversations in other parts of the hospital, have heard and seen things happening many miles from where their body is located, and have seen people in their NDE that they didn’t know were dead, this happens all the time.

At least you tried to give an argument, I’ll give you credit for that, but you haven’t diminished the strength of my argument one iota. Your arguments are very weak, and your conclusions don’t follow from the facts of NDEs. The truth of the premises of my argument stands based on the following:

The fourth criterion is the truth of the premises. To know if the premises are true, we need corroboration of the testimonial evidence, a high degree of consistency, and firsthand testimony. In all or most of these cases, it seems clear that we have all three. We have millions of accounts that can be corroborated by family members, friends, doctors, nurses, and hospice workers. Corroboration is important in establishing some objectivity to what is a very subjective experience. It gives credence and credibility to the accounts. One example of corroboration is given in Pam's NDE out of Atlanta, GA, which can be seen on YouTube, although the video is old.

Consistency is also important to the establishment of the truth of the premises. We have a high degree of consistency across a wide variety of reports. What are these consistent reports?

1) Seeing one's body from a third person perspective, that is, from outside one's body, and hearing and seeing what is happening around their bodies.
2) Having intense feelings of being loved, intense feelings of peace, and the absence of pain.
3) Seeing a light or tunnel in the distance and feeling that one is being drawn to the light, or moving towards the light.
4) Seeing deceased loved ones.
5) Seeing beings of light that one may interpret as Jesus, Mary, Muhammad, an angel, or just a loving being that one may feel connected with.
6) Heightened sensory experiences, namely, feeling that one is having an ultra-real experience, as opposed to a dream or a hallucination. This happens even when there is no measurable brain activity.
7) Communication that happens mind-to-mind, not verbally.
8) Seeing beautiful landscapes.
9) Seeing people who are getting ready or waiting to be born.
10) Having a life review by a loving being who is not judgmental, but simply showing you how important it is to love, and the importance of your actions on those you come in contact with.
11) Feeling as though one has returned home. This is also confirmed by people who were told they chose to come to Earth.
12) A feeling of oneness with everything, as though we are part of one consciousness.
13) Memories of who they are return, as though they temporarily forgot who they were, and where they came from.
14) There are also reports of knowledge returning, and many questions being answered as quickly as they think of the question.
15) Understanding that ultimately we cannot be harmed and that everything is perfect as it is.
16) That we are eternal beings simply entering into one of many realities. We are simply higher beings who choose to have a human experience. Ultimately, we are not human, being human is just a temporary experience. Our humanity ends when we die, then we assume our original form.

Another aid in establishing the truth of the testimonial evidence is firsthand accounts, as opposed to hearsay. There are thousands of firsthand accounts being reported by the International Association of Near-Death Studies, and according to polling, there are many millions of firsthand accounts.

I’m quite familiar with symbolic logic and I know some modal logic which means that I know something about correct reasoning, including how to analyze arguments. — Sam26

We have to prove this every time we make an argument. The proof is in the argument, not our past accomplishments.

Most of our reasoning, including science, is inductive. — Sam26

Very true. But you have to give an inductive argument that rises to the level of scientific consideration. I can inductively believe the moon has little men living inside of it, but its not rigorous or cogent enough to be given serious consideration. Good inductive arguments base as much of their argument on deduction as possible, and only go to induction when it is the only choice. This is different from a hypotheses, which is a claim that has not been tested yet.

You can claim, "Consciousness exists beyond death," as a hypotheses, but then it has to be actually tested and confirmed at least once. This confirmation must be rigorous, and once again, involve as much logic and deduction as possible. You claims pass a hypothesis, but I have not seen any confirmation of your claims. Currently the hypothesis, "Our consciousness does not survive death," has been confirmed in applicable tests. You'll need to show me actual tests that passed peer review, and can be repeated that show our consciousness exists beyond death. To my mind, there are none, but I am open to read if you cite one.

A word about sound arguments (soundness is a property of deductive arguments, it includes validity and the truth of the premises), in logic it’s used as a criterion to describe good deductive arguments, although the truth of the premises of an inductive argument is parallel to soundness in deductive arguments. — Sam26

Certainly, I speak to everyone as if they are a layman until they show me otherwise. Most people do not need the technical context of the word in logic. 'Sound' to the layman is often understood as 'An argument confirmed to be correct'. I've reiterated my point above demonstrating that your inductive argument is at best a hypothesis that has not passed the rigorous testing needed to counter the current conclusion in science that consciousness does not survive death.

For someone to say, “You strike me as a thinker in earlier stages of development,” is laughable given these comments on logic. — Sam26

Knowledge of vocabulary in expert contexts has nothing to do with thinking. Thinking is the strength of our arguments when both sides are on the same contextual vocabulary. I do not see how your arguments have met the criterion I've noted above to be considered more than an unconfirmed hypothesis.

Just because we can duplicate NDEs, it doesn’t follow that NDEs are not objectively real. It just means we know what things can trigger similar aspects of the NDE. It also just means that the brain plays a role in consciousness as we know it. It doesn’t follow that duplicating NDEs demonstrates that consciousness is solely a construct of the brain. — Sam26

Of course being able to duplicate NDEs does not mean they are not real. But it also doesn't demonstrate that they are real apart from subjective experience. Being able to duplicate NDEs means

1. We can set up situations to test NDEs.
2. We can monitor the brain and observe how 'dead' it is.

In the tests that I am aware of, no one has ever been able to observe anything in the room outside of their vision, or confirm outside noises that cannot penetrate the room during the specified time frame. That's a huge blow to the idea that NDE's are more than simply subjective experiences like dreams.

Further, NDE's can be duplicated merely under brain 'stress' in which the brain is still very much alive and active. How can one have a consciousness that both leaves the brain and is in the brain at the same time? I suppose if there was a particular location of the brain that contained consciousness, we could coodinate the reported time of an OBE by what was happening in the room and find a particular brain region that goes dim so we can say, "That's the location consciousness resides". To my knowledge, that hasn't happened yet either.

Another point is that visual and auditory imaging is processed through the brain and the senses. If consciousness left your brain, how is it seeing or hearing? Even if it could receive light or detect the vibrations in the air, wouldn't the perception be different from a brain if you're not getting the information from a brain? The fact that its as a brain would imagine, and the fact that its OBEs have not picked up a confirmed sight or noise outside of visual or auditory range, leads much more tot he idea that an OBE is not actually happening outside of a subjective brain experience.

For someone who claims to have studied NDEs and who continues to say things like, “How do you reconcile the fact that no OBE has ever been shown to see something that was placed outside of their bodies field of view during the time in which the NDE should be occurring?” - is completely mystifying to me. There have been many corroborative NDE accounts of people seeing and hearing things that are nowhere near their bodies. Just a cursory study of NDEs should dispel this belief. — Sam26

Cite a scientific article that has been peer reviewed, proper control and variable setup, and has been repeated with the same success elsewhere and you have a point. Don't be baffled. Just point out the studies.

People have heard conversations in other parts of the hospital, have heard and seen things happening many miles from where their body is located, and have seen people in their NDE that they didn’t know were dead, this happens all the time. — Sam26

If this is in a non-scientific setting, its useful as a means to explore a hypothesis, but nothing more. Cite a reputable article in a controlled setting and you'll have something.

One example of corroboration is given in Pam's NDE out of Atlanta, GA — Sam26

I responded to this a few posts back with an article that demonstrated why the claims were not enough to confirm an actual OBE. Feel free to refute them, no statute of limitations here! :)

To know if the premises are true, we need corroboration of the testimonial evidence, a high degree of consistency, and firsthand testimony. In all or most of these cases, it seems clear that we have all three. — Sam26

Again, all this proves is a subjective consistency in some people, while as you've noticed in The Near Death experience paper you cited, there are many people who also do not have, or have very different NDE experiences. Only about half have OBEs, while the majority have variations of pleasant feelings. Considering OBEs have not been show to be objectively real, the majority having pleasant feelings when under oxygen deprivation or other slowed brain activity is hardly a slam dunk argument that consciousness is surviving outside of the brain.

Again, everything except Pam that you have cited is evidence of a shared subjective experience people have, NOT an objective confirmation that consciousness is actually leaving the brain, making observations, then returning to the brain after. Pam is again, a great example of something which lends to a hypothesis. But testing is where objectivity is determined. And unless you can give such testing, your argument that consciousness survives outside of the brain as an objective reality has no real evidence.

You continue to demonstrate that you don't understand the nature of my argument so I'm not going to continue. For example, you continue to say that it's just subjective and when I point out that there has been objective corroboration from doctors, nurses, friends, and family members you just reject it. That's fine, but it's just not the case, and just a little study of the experiences will show that it's not the case. I don't need peer-reviewed studies to understand that there is objective corroboration.

That said, thanks for the responses.

For example, you continue to say that it's just subjective and when I point out that there has been objective corroboration from doctors, nurses, friends, and family members you just reject it. — Sam26

No, there has been subjective testimony in an uncontrolled setting. Objectively, that testimony has occurred. That does not mean that the perception of what happened means that what they interpreted was objectively real. For example, in the cases in which patients have claimed to see or hear things that sound like they are in the room in uncontrolled settings, it is unknown at what time they had those experiences. If a person is going into anesthesia or coming out of it, consciousness can return at points that are not fully registered to the disoriented individual. But I have already gone over these tests, so will not repeat myself.

A further case in point: Psychics.

I can gather tons of testimonial evidence that certain people have psychic powers. They're able to repeat them in front of people repeatedly, and people would swear they have powers. Much like magicians. But, take any psychic and put them in a controlled lab setting, and you find they're frauds. I'm not saying they didn't objectively have these experiences, same with people who have NDEs and OBEs. Its whether what they are subjectively interpreting matches with objective reality, "I actually left my body and truly observed the room as it is" that needs to be confirmed and has not.

I don't need peer-reviewed studies to understand that there is objective corroboration. — Sam26

You do not need peer reviewed studies to determine objective corroboration with seeing psychics or magicians either. Observation from many subjects in an uncontrolled and tested setting has never been enough evidence to determine any objective conclusions as to whether their perception of the situation matches with objective reality.

Again, you keep making the wrong logical leap. You think that because many people say something in an uncontrolled setting, that their perceptions and beliefs about what happened match objective reality. That could not be further from the truth. At best, you have a situation that generates a hypothesis that needs to be tested. And in every testing case that I am aware of with OBE, it has been found that the person's subjective experience does not conform with objective reality. your argument is the equivalent of a crowd at a David Copperfield performance swearing that he objectively levitated off the ground because that's what everyone saw.

Either you are dodging my point, or you are simply do not understand it. As a person with a background in philosophy, it should be crystal clear to you by now. If you do not provide any evidence that these subjective interpretations of reality have been confirmed as objective realities in controlled settings, then your argument has failed as an assertion. It is a hypothesis, no more, and cannot stand against other the contrary hypothesis that has been confirmed as of this day: "Consciousness does not survive death".

I've seen that interview, but it's worth sharing. Thanks.

https://youtu.be/NVsBFOB7H44

@Sam26 :eyes:

If you do not provide any evidence that these subjective interpretations of reality have been confirmed as objective realities in controlled settings, then your argument has failed as an assertion. It is a hypothesis [idle speculation], no more, and cannot stand against other the contrary hypothesis that has been confirmed as of this day: "Consciousness does not survive death". — Philosophim

:100: :up:

The idea that we need to confirm our subjective experiences in controlled settings or they're not veridical is ridiculous on its face. Or, that we need something more than hundreds of thousands of corroborated (objective) reports is so irrational that only someone with a worldview that is set in cement would accept it.

:ok: :rofl:

The idea that we need to confirm our subjective experiences in controlled settings or they're not veridical is ridiculous on its face. — Sam26

:up:

Specifically, subjective experience overflows or transcends controlled settings exactly as concrete reality overflows and transcends the artificially constrained environments within which alone experimental science proceeds (and which render all scientific results as merely a set of ever-improving approximations).

I think the whole idea of consciousness "surviving death" is misleading. What is plausible is that consciousness transcends the apparent physical boundaries of the individual organism. It is a feature of a larger system. It isn't so much about surviving death as never having been entirely constrained by the limits of the purely individual organism to begin with. Consciousness, in its essence, is imminently trans-individual.

Consciousness, in its essence, is imminently trans-individual. — Pantagruel

If so, then what makes "consciousness" mine? If it's not mine, then why should "consciousness" matter to me? If, however, "consciousness" is mine, then what does "trans-individual" mean and why should it matter to me?

If so, then what makes "consciousness" mine? If it's not mine, then why should "consciousness" matter to me? If, however, "consciousness" is mine, then what does "trans-individual" mean and why should it matter to me? — 180 Proof

I watched a small murder of crows spooked from their foraging recently. They dispersed in a strategic fashion, the majority heading to a distant safe perch, two scouts remaining closer to the scene. All the while calling and responding to one another. It was evidently highly coordinated, a social entity, an organism, a macroscopic brain.

We are unquestionably already cooperative collective entities. Cells form organisms form colonies. There is no individual apart from the collective, nor vice-versa.

Thought...must presuppose communication.
Man is essentially a social animal.
~ Charles Sanders Peirce

The idea that we need to confirm our subjective experiences in controlled settings or they're not veridical is ridiculous on its face. — Sam26

That's not what I said. Maybe it is true that David Copperfield really levitated that day. Its a given that what we subjectively experience may, or may not be true. Its about whether we have the proper evidence to claim that our interpretation of that subjective experience is in alignment with what really happened. Given that we can duplicate and test NDEs, it is only reasonable that we test and use those findings to figure out what is going on in reality when people have these experiences.

Or, that we need something more than hundreds of thousands of corroborated (objective) reports is so irrational that only someone with a worldview that is set in cement would accept it. — Sam26

We have billions of people that look into the sky and see that the Sun travels around the Earth. The Sun rises in the East, and sets in the West. No one is saying we don't have that unified and confirmed subjective experience. But is our interpretation of that subjective experience true? No. It turns out that the Earth actually orbits the sun. But from our limited perspectives, and can feel like its the other way around.

Your problem is one of epistemology. I encourage you to open up your field of study into it if it was not your original focus. That was my field of study when I got my degrees years ago. I have my own take on epistemology here if you're interested. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

I asked clear, direct, relevant questions here and yet you reply with an opaque non sequitur. Apparently, it's reasonable to assume (again), you don't even know what you're talking about. Okay, never mind.

We have billions of people that look into the sky and see that the Sun travels around the Earth. The Sun rises in the East, and sets in the West. No one is saying we don't have that unified and confirmed subjective experience. But is our interpretation of that subjective experience true? No. It turns out that the Earth actually orbits the sun. But from our limited perspectives, and can feel like its the other way around. — Philosophim

:up: :up:

Anecdotal, magical thinking dogmas abound (despite alleged philosophy graduate.studies). Geocentric flat earthers, after all, are violently allergic to counter-evidence / sound counter-arguments.

It was evidently highly coordinated, a social entity, an organism, a macroscopic brain. — Pantagruel

Maybe, but one crow does not look out of the eyes of another, any more than when @180 Proof peers into his soul, I feel like an asshole.

EDIT: I don't think @180 Proof really wants to be arguing for the privacy of experience, but maybe he does.