Since we know memories are stored in the brain, and damage to the brain destroys memory in the living, that knowledge leads us to the conclusion that destruction of the brain entirely in death eliminates one's memories. — Hanover

As discussed previously in this thread, there are documented cases of children who appear to recall previous lives. Documented in the sense that steps were taken to validate the purported past-life memories by discovering documentary and historical records that corroborate (or disprove) the purported memories. There were many such cases gathered by a Dr Ian Stevenson. Stevenson does not posit a medium through which such memories may be transmitted however, collectively, there is a considerable amount of evidence for the veracity of some of these cases.

I read the book. You either believe the physically impossible accounts of largely rural children in underdeveloped nations where reincarnation is a mainstream belief or you don't. The better explanation for all their accounts is information leakage and confirmation bias.

It's sort of like how only Christians seem to see Jesus in their cereal bowl.

You can't wave off the crushing criticism that brains house memory, a fact easily proven.

:up:
:up:

No doubt, given most cogent, critical objections to "disembodied mind", "NDE", "OOBE", "reincarnation" – i.e. substance / body-mind dualism – raised in this thread (& others) remain unaddressed or unrefuted, I suspect @Sam26's upcoming book, in effect, will amount to special pleading that e.g. 'faces we see in clouds are actual faces which also can see us on the ground', etc :sparkle:

Oh, the old “brain's house memory, it’s proven!” chestnut from @Hanover, and @180 Proof’s special pleading accusation. I love it, and I will deal with these criticisms in the book, but let’s have some fun.

First, critics act like consciousness is all figured out, as if the example given earlier in the thread about Pam Reynolds’ pinpoint recall of a bone saw’s weird shape during a flatlined brain (EEG flat, eyes taped shut, and ears blocked) is just a casual Tuesday for brain function. Sure, normally memory is tied to neurons, but NDEs like hers, verified by surgeons (corroborated), mind you, toss your proven fact into a blender. There are millions of NDE accounts across cultures that are consistent and corroborated, which demonstrate much more than seeing Jesus in a cereal bowl or faces in clouds. Random neural farts don’t produce globally verifiable stories.

Then, of course, there’s @180 Proofs special pleading cry, as if I’m waving a magic wand to exempt NDEs from scrutiny. Puh-lease. I’ve laid out, I don’t know how many times, five rock solid criteria – numbers, variety, consistency, corroboration, and firsthand accounts used for NDEs, which are also used in history, courtrooms, and good detective work. Why you would use these sorry excuses for an argument is beyond me. Moreover, to claim that my argument is fallacious by using special pleading is just evidence that you don't know this fallacy, as if repeating it will make it so.

The quip about “seeing faces in clouds” is cute, but NDEs aren’t cloud art. There’s just too much hard data from cross-cultural studies that put the kibosh on this kind of thinking, and frankly, again, show how much these remarks demonstrate a lack of understanding of what’s actually happening.

I assumed that @Hanover would apply equally to my arguments, so l lumped them together. If not, then disregard @Hanover. By the way, I'm making no claims to support Dr Ian Stevenson's arguments.

You can't wave off the crushing criticism that brains house memory, a fact easily proven. — Hanover

It's not so clear cut as you believe. The amount of documentary evidence that Stephenson assembled can't simply be waved away, although as he says, the will not to believe it, is just as strong as the will to believe it.

I read the book. — Hanover

Which book?

It's sort of like how only Christians seem to see Jesus in their cereal bowl. — Hanover

See report on the case of Imad Elewar. Considerably more detail than in a cereal bowl.

For those of you interested, this is a draft of the opening chapter of my book examining NDEs through rigorous philosophical analysis. The complete draft runs approximately 120 pages and follows a systematic structure: Chapter 2 establishes the epistemological framework that guides the investigation, Chapter 3 presents the central inductive argument for consciousness survival, Chapter 4 responds to major objections and counter-arguments, Chapter 5 explores alternative interpretations and broader implications, and Chapter 6 offers an extended philosophical analysis for readers interested in deeper epistemological ideas. I'm considering adding a seventh chapter, but haven't decided.

The book aims to move beyond typical NDE literature, neither collections of inspiring stories nor reflexive scientific dismissals, toward a methodologically rigorous evaluation of what testimonial evidence can actually tell us about consciousness and survival. By applying established criteria for evaluating testimony, the same standards used in historical research and legal proceedings, we can determine what conclusions the evidence supports and with what degree of confidence.

My title may change.


Beyond The Threshold: What We Know From Near-Death Experiences

Chapter 1: The Preliminaries

A Tale of Varied Interpretations: Why Assumptions Matter

In 1991, Pam Reynolds lay on an operating table at the Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, undergoing a rare "standstill" procedure to remove a life-threatening aneurysm near her brain stem. Surgeons stopped her heart, lowered her body temperature to 60°F, and drained blood from her brain. She was clinically dead—no measurable brain activity, eyes taped shut, ears plugged with speakers emitting 100-decibel clicks to monitor brain stem function.

Yet Pam later described rising above her body, observing the surgical team with extraordinary precision. She noted the bone saw's peculiar shape—"like an electric toothbrush" with a groove for interchangeable blades. She saw the case containing spare blades. She heard a female voice say, "We have a problem—her arteries are too small," followed by a discussion of trying the other side. She reported being drawn through a tunnel toward a light more brilliant than anything imaginable, yet not painful to perceive. There she encountered deceased relatives, including her grandmother and an uncle she'd known only from photographs. They communicated without words: "It's not your time. You have to go back."

When surgeons later confirmed these details, the unusual design of the Midas Rex bone saw, the unexpected problem with her arteries requiring femoral access from the left side, and the exact words spoken—they faced an epistemological puzzle. Dr. Robert Spetzler, the renowned neurosurgeon who operated, admitted his bewilderment: "I don't have an explanation for it. I don't know how she can quote the conversation, see the instruments—these are things she shouldn't have been able to experience." He confirmed additional details that troubled him: Pam had accurately described the craniotomy drill's unexpected pitch, a high D natural that bothered her musician's ear, and the specific pattern in which they had shaved only the top portion of her head, leaving hair below for cosmetic reasons. "From a scientific perspective," Spetzler concluded, "I have to say, I don't know how to explain it."

Reynolds' case is not isolated. Dr. Eben Alexander, a Harvard-trained neurosurgeon and former skeptic, experienced a vivid NDE in 2008 during a coma from bacterial meningitis, describing a hyper-real realm with verified hospital details that challenge brain-based models. Similar verified accounts include a Dutch patient overhearing conversations during cardiac arrest, a Canadian learning of a distant death, and others describing surgical tools or distant events—all corroborated despite flat EEGs. These cases span ages, cultures, and contexts, suggesting consciousness may function independently of the brain.

Three readers encounter Pam's story. Mark, a neuroscientist, dismisses it immediately: "Anoxia, endorphins, temporal lobe seizures—the dying brain generates complex hallucinations. The surgical details? Lucky guesses or reconstructed memories from pre-operative briefings." Lila, who practices meditation and studies consciousness, sees vindication: "This proves what mystics have always known—consciousness transcends the physical brain. How else could she see and hear with no functioning sensory organs?" Elena, a surgical nurse, occupies an uncertain middle ground. She knows those specific bone saws weren't standard equipment in 1991. She's heard similar accounts from other patients. Yet her medical training resists non-physical explanations.

Three intelligent people examining identical evidence reach incompatible conclusions. Their fundamental assumptions about consciousness, evidence, and reality shape their interpretations before they even begin evaluating facts.

Mark assumes consciousness equals brain activity; therefore, any perception during brain death must be false. His materialism isn't a conclusion from evidence; it's the lens through which he views all evidence. Lila assumes consciousness can exist independently of the brain; therefore, veridical perception during brain death confirms her worldview. Pam's case doesn't prove her dualism; it determines how she interprets it. Elena recognizes that she doesn't know what consciousness is or how it relates to the brain; therefore, she remains genuinely puzzled by evidence that doesn't align with her expectations.

These same invisible assumptions operate throughout our lives. When a jury evaluates eyewitness testimony, they assume memory works like a video camera, despite decades of research showing it's more like a reconstruction. When we accept historical accounts of Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon, we assume ancient writers recorded events accurately, yet dismiss contemporary accounts of anomalous experiences. When a doctor makes a diagnosis based on symptoms and test results that we cannot interpret ourselves, we trust their professional testimony, yet demand impossible standards of proof for personal accounts that challenge our worldview. In each case, our philosophical assumptions about knowledge, reliability, and possibility determine what evidence we accept or reject before we even begin our evaluation.

This book investigates a deceptively simple question: What can we actually know from testimonial evidence about near-death experiences? Not what we hope, fear, or assume, but what careful philosophical analysis reveals when we examine thousands of such accounts with the same rigor we'd apply to any other domain of human knowledge.

The answer matters. If consciousness can operate independently of the brain, even temporarily, it revolutionizes our understanding of human nature. If NDEs are purely neurological phenomena, they still reveal profound truths about how minds construct meaning in extremis. But we can't even begin this investigation without first examining our tools—the philosophical assumptions that determine what counts as knowledge, evidence, and rational belief.

NDEs Through History: A Timeless Phenomenon

In Book X of Plato's Republic, the warrior Er lay dead on a battlefield for twelve days before awakening to tell an astonishing tale. He had journeyed through the afterlife, witnessed souls ascending through a great chasm in the earth, and beheld a cosmic pillar of light "straighter than a rainbow" that held the universe together. At the center sat the three Fates—Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos—while souls chose their next incarnations based on wisdom gained from past lives. Er watched his companions select their destinies before being sent back to warn the living: our choices echo through eternity.

This account from ancient Greece contains virtually every element modern researchers document in near-death experiences: separation from the body, journey to another realm, encounter with a brilliant light, meeting with supernatural beings, life review with moral implications, and return with transformative knowledge. The parallels are precise enough to unsettle our contemporary assumptions about when and where such experiences occur.

Medieval Europe provides its own remarkable accounts. Hildegard of Bingen, the 12th-century Benedictine abbess, nearly died at age forty-two from an illness that left her bedridden for months. During her crisis, she experienced what she called "the Living Light"—a radiance that pervaded all creation and spoke to her without words. "The light which I see is not located, but yet is more brilliant than the sun," she wrote. "I cannot examine its height, length or breadth, and I name it 'the cloud of the living light.'" Within this light, she encountered angelic beings who revealed cosmic truths about the nature of soul and body. Her experience transformed her from an unknown nun into one of the most influential visionaries of the Middle Ages, producing illuminated manuscripts that still captivate viewers with their attempts to render the ineffable in paint and gold leaf.

The 13th-century Sufi mystic Jalaluddin Rumi reported visions during severe illness of whirling in divine light, encountering boundless love that transcended physical form, shaping his poetry like the Mathnawi: "I died as a mineral and became a plant... and once more I shall die as man, to soar with angels blest." The Tibetan Bardo Thodol (8th century) outlines post-death journeys through Clear Light and deceased encounters. Indigenous traditions add depth: Lakota medicine man Black Elk's childhood vision of ascending to ancestral councils in radiant realms, or Yoruba elders guiding souls in luminous spaces.

What makes our current moment unique isn't the experiences themselves but two revolutionary developments. First, modern resuscitation techniques—CPR, defibrillation, advanced cardiac life support—routinely bring people back from states of clinical death that would have been irreversible throughout human history. A heart attack victim in ancient Athens stayed dead; today, they might return twenty minutes later with stories of the afterlife. Second, we now possess sophisticated tools for collecting and analyzing testimonial evidence on a global scale, allowing cross-cultural comparison impossible in previous eras.

These historical and cultural accounts force us beyond simplistic questions. Rather than asking whether NDEs represent universal truth or cultural construction, we must investigate how universal human experiences inevitably express themselves through available cultural symbols and languages. How do we distinguish the core phenomenon from its cultural clothing? What epistemological tools can separate experience from interpretation, especially when the experience itself transcends ordinary language?

The Shared Patterns of Near-Death Experiences

The historical accounts we've examined suggest consistent patterns across cultures and centuries. When physician Raymond Moody published Life After Life in 1975, he systematically identified fifteen recurring elements in NDE accounts, subsequently corroborated by thousands of cases. Bruce Greyson's NDE Scale, used in academic studies worldwide, identifies consistent elements that appear across thousands of cases: out-of-body experiences with accurate environmental perception, radiant light, and encounters with deceased relatives, corroborated by thousands of accounts.

The out-of-body experience occurs in roughly 75-85% of NDEs according to the Near-Death Experience Research Foundation's analysis of over 4,000 cases. Experiencers don't merely imagine floating; they report specific vantage points—typically above and to the right of their body—and later describe details they seemingly couldn't have known. Like Pam Reynolds observing her skull surgery from above, cardiac arrest patients have accurately reported which medical staff entered or left during resuscitation, what instruments were used, and even conversations in distant hospital corridors. Blind individuals report detailed "visual" perceptions during NDEs, accurately describing operating room layouts, staff clothing, and equipment configurations—all verified by personnel.

Movement through darkness toward light appears in 65-75% of Western accounts. But this isn't ordinary darkness or light. Experiencers struggle for adequate metaphors: "like being drawn through space faster than light," "a tunnel that was alive," "darkness that had texture and depth." The light itself defies physics—described as millions of times brighter than the sun yet not painful to perceive, emanating warmth and what many call "liquid love." Encounters with deceased individuals occur in approximately 70-80% of detailed accounts, but with intriguing specifics. Children under seven sometimes meet grandparents who died before they were born, later identifying them from family photos. Adults occasionally encounter recently deceased friends who reference shared experiences and demonstrate knowledge of events that occurred after their own deaths. In a University of Virginia study, 22% of experiencers met someone during their NDE whose death they couldn't have known about through normal means.

The life review phenomenon, reported in 70-80% of cases, transcends simple memory. Experiencers describe reliving events from multiple perspectives simultaneously—seeing through their own eyes, the eyes of people they affected, even experiencing the extended ripple effects of their actions. One construction worker reported experiencing not just his cruel words to a coworker, but the man going home upset, arguing with his wife, and his children overhearing—a cascade of consequences he'd never imagined.

Perhaps most challenging to materialist explanations is the transformation that follows. University of Connecticut research found that 80-90% of NDErs show permanent positive personality changes: decreased death anxiety, increased compassion, reduced materialism, and enhanced appreciation for life. These aren't subtle shifts—spouses report their partners seem like "completely different people," while experiencers often change careers, relationships, and fundamental values, such as a CEO founding a hospice charity after a heart attack or a nurse shifting to empathy-driven care.

Dr. Bruce Greyson's NDE Scale, used in most academic studies, quantifies these elements scientifically. Scores of 7 or above (out of 32) indicate an NDE, with most experiencers scoring between 15 and 20, facilitating systematic assessment and ensuring that testimonial evidence reflects consistent phenomena rather than random hallucinations or cultural narratives.

Yet these documented patterns generate profound philosophical questions. If NDEs were purely brain-based, why such consistency across ages, cultures, and types of death? Random neural firing should produce random experiences. But if they glimpse objective reality, why any variation at all? The answer likely lies in how we evaluate testimonial evidence—distinguishing raw experience from interpretation, universal elements from cultural expression. This cultural feedback loop—where NDE stories shape beliefs, which in turn shape how new experiences are reported—complicates our evaluation. Philosophy offers tools to separate evidence from expectation.

The remarkable consistency of these NDE patterns, mirroring how everyday testimonials converge to shape our sense of reality, suggests these experiences may reflect something more than random hallucinations. Just as multiple witnesses to a car accident or consistent historical accounts of an event like Julius Caesar’s Rubicon crossing help us reconstruct what happened, the uniformity of NDE reports across ages, cultures, and beliefs invites us to consider their potential as glimpses of an objective phenomenon. Yet, determining whether this consistency points to veridical experiences requires rigorous evaluation, using the same epistemological tools we apply to other domains of knowledge. We’ll explore these tools in the chapters ahead, ensuring a fair and systematic inquiry into what NDEs reveal about consciousness.

Common Misconceptions About NDEs

Before delving further, it's worth addressing some common misconceptions that often cloud discussions of NDEs, as these highlight how worldviews can predetermine conclusions. One frequent dismissal is that NDEs are merely hallucinations triggered by a dying brain, akin to dreams or drug-induced visions. While it's true that oxygen deprivation or neural surges can produce vivid imagery, this explanation falters against veridical elements, such as specific, corroborated details like Pam Reynolds' accurate description of surgical tools she couldn't have seen. If these were random hallucinations, why are there consistent patterns across individuals, and why do they include information verifiable by third parties? This misconception often stems from assuming consciousness is strictly brain-bound, a premise that begs the question rather than engaging the evidence.

Another myth is that NDEs are purely cultural constructs, shaped by religious upbringing or media exposure. Skeptics point to variations, such as hellish interpretations in some Christian accounts, as proof of subjectivity. Yet, the core features (out-of-body travel, radiant light, life reviews) persist across cultures with no shared media influence, from isolated indigenous groups to atheists expecting oblivion. Children too young for cultural conditioning report similar elements, such as meeting deceased relatives they never knew existed, later identified from family photos. This suggests a universal human experience filtered through cultural lenses, not invented by them.

A third misconception is that NDEs lack scientific credibility because they can't be replicated in labs. But testimonial evidence underpins much of our knowledge—eyewitness accounts in history, patient reports in medicine, or even quantum observations relying on researcher testimony. Demanding lab proof for NDEs applies a double standard; we'd dismiss much of history (like the signing of the Magna Carta) if held to the same criterion. Instead, the volume and consistency of reports warrant serious inquiry, much like how epidemiology studies patterns in patient testimonies without recreating diseases.

These misconceptions reveal selective skepticism: we trust testimony in everyday domains but raise the bar for paradigm-challenging claims. Recognizing this bias is crucial for neutral evaluation, as it prevents preconceptions from overshadowing the evidence we'll explore in depth later.

Philosophy as the Foundation of Inquiry

This book offers a different approach to near-death experiences. You won't find dozens of new NDE testimonies here—there are already plenty of books that provide those. Nor will you find attempts to explain away these experiences through brain chemistry or oxygen deprivation—that ground has been well-covered. Instead, you'll find a systematic examination of how we evaluate testimonial evidence and what we can legitimately conclude when we apply rigorous standards to the thousands of NDE reports already available.

Most NDE books fall into predictable categories: collections of amazing stories meant to inspire, medical attempts to explain them away, or religious interpretations that assume their truth. Each approach has value but also built-in limitations. Story collections move us, but don't help us evaluate reliability. Medical explanations often assume what they need to prove, that consciousness equals brain activity. Religious interpretations typically select evidence that confirms predetermined beliefs.

What's missing is a genuinely neutral investigation, one that neither assumes NDEs are glimpses of the afterlife nor dismisses them as dying brain phenomena. This requires examining the testimonial evidence with the same rigor we'd apply to any important knowledge claim, whether in science, law, or history. It means developing clear criteria for when testimony provides genuine knowledge versus mere anecdote.

The philosophical tools for this investigation already exist. Epistemologists have spent decades analyzing when and why testimony works as a source of knowledge. Philosophers of mind have developed sophisticated frameworks for understanding consciousness that go beyond simple brain-equals-mind equations. Logicians have created methods for evaluating evidence that avoid common fallacies of both believers and skeptics.

Many people mistakenly believe that if science hasn't confirmed something, we cannot claim to know it. This assumption, sometimes called scientism, is itself a philosophical position that needs justification. Science relies on the same testimonial evidence, logical inference, and sensory experience we use in everyday life; it simply applies these tools more rigorously. Our deepest convictions about meaning, morality, and relationships transcend purely empirical methods. When we approach NDEs with rigorous philosophical analysis, we're using the best available methods to evaluate questions that purely empirical approaches cannot resolve alone.

This book applies these tools systematically to NDE testimony for the first time. We'll establish what makes some testimonial evidence stronger than others, and why Pam Reynolds' case carries more weight than vague memories of light. We'll examine what can and cannot be concluded from patterns across thousands of accounts.


The Power and Limits of Testimony

There are at least five primary paths to knowledge (justified true belief): linguistic training (learning what words mean), pure reason (mathematical and logical truths), sensory experience, testimony from others, and inference through argument (logic). Each represents a legitimate route to understanding, yet testimony, despite being socially essential, is often undervalued when it challenges our worldview.

Consider what you know through testimony alone: that you were born on a certain date, that Antarctica exists, that DNA carries genetic information. You've likely never verified these claims independently, yet you'd be thought foolish to doubt them. We generally trust the testimony of historians about ancient Rome, physicists about quantum mechanics, and doctors about our internal organs, none of which we can directly observe.

Yet when someone reports a near-death experience, many suddenly demand standards of proof they apply nowhere else. This selective skepticism reveals more about our philosophical commitments than about the reliability of testimony itself. A neuroscientist who accepts colleagues' reports about brain scans may reject patient reports about consciousness during cardiac arrest, not because one form of testimony is inherently superior, but because one challenges their worldview while the other confirms it.

The fundamental issue isn't whether NDE testimonies are true or false, but whether we're applying consistent standards. If we accept testimony about the age of the universe (13.8 billion years) or the existence of black holes, both beyond direct verification, why not testimony about experiences during clinical death? The answer lies not in the testimony itself but in our prior assumptions about what's possible. This doesn't mean all testimony is equal. Courts have developed sophisticated methods for evaluating witness reliability, historians have criteria for assessing ancient sources, and scientists have peer review. What we need are similarly rigorous standards for evaluating NDE testimony, standards that neither dismiss these claims reflexively nor accept them uncritically.

Why This Matters Now: The Stakes of the Investigation

The possibility that consciousness persists beyond bodily death carries profound implications for how we understand identity, ethics, and the nature of existence. If NDEs indicate an independent consciousness, they challenge fundamental assumptions about human nature, demanding a reevaluation of how we approach life, death, and societal values. Medically, NDE research suggests that awareness may persist during clinical death, prompting significant changes in practice, revising EMS protocols to account for potential consciousness during resuscitation emphasizes respectful treatment of patients. Compassionate care informed by NDE insights notes that patients often report heightened awareness during critical procedures.

Psychologically, NDEs have transformative effects, with 80-90% of experiencers reporting reduced death anxiety, heightened compassion, and altruistic shifts. Take the CEO who, after a heart attack NDE, founded a hospice charity, or the nurse who shifted from routine procedures to empathy-driven care. Such changes hint at untapped psychological potential, challenging therapies that view death anxiety as inevitable.

Religiously, NDEs challenge dogmatic narratives, particularly those centered on eternal punishment. Non-judgmental life reviews and overwhelmingly positive experiences contradict traditional notions of divine judgment, fostering interfaith dialogue around shared themes of compassion.

The Journey Ahead

The testimonies of NDEs present us with a profound challenge. Thousands of people from different cultures, ages, and backgrounds report strikingly similar experiences during clinical death, experiences that shouldn't be possible if consciousness is merely brain activity.

This book will navigate between naive acceptance and dogmatic dismissal, using philosophical tools to evaluate what we can legitimately conclude. We'll examine the epistemology of testimony, analyze the language experiencers use, and we'll apply the same standards we use in science, law, detective work, and history to understand what NDEs reveal about consciousness, existence, and human values.

The question isn't simply whether NDEs are "real, "a term that itself needs philosophical analysis, but what they can teach us about the nature of mind, the limits of current scientific paradigms, and the possibility that consciousness might be more than neurons firing in the dark. By journey's end, you'll have the tools to evaluate not just NDEs but any domain where human testimony provides our primary access to important phenomena.

The investigation begins with a simple recognition: we're all already philosophers, making assumptions about consciousness, knowledge, and reality every day. The choice is whether to examine these assumptions consciously or let them silently determine what we're willing to see. In the pages that follow, we'll make that examination explicit, rigorous, and fair, wherever the evidence may lead.

Excellent stuff.

This sets up a novel enquiry into an odd phenomenon, which even a sceptic such as I might find interesting.

There's a long way to go, but you present an interesting starting point.

Thank you, Banno. This book has been on my mind for years, but I've finally made real headway. I now have a full rough draft of the eBook completed. I'm approaching the problem of NDEs from an epistemological framework, examining if it's possible to claim knowledge based on the evidence of these phenomena. To properly grasp my point, it's essential to recognize how testimony functions in our daily lives and its crucial role in the justification process.

I remain sceptical. But this is impressive.

Ya, I understand.

Coming back to this one after a while.

The fundamental issue isn't whether NDE testimonies are true or false, but whether we're applying consistent standards. If we accept testimony about the age of the universe (13.8 billion years) or the existence of black holes, both beyond direct verification, why not testimony about experiences during clinical death? — Sam26

Because those claims have already passed scientific rigor. Years of research, peer review, and challenges using careful experiments have been cleared to finally be passed down to lay people. You can look up the experiments, the research, the process, and the evidence. You can question the falsifiable conclusions yourself. I see no evidence of testimony not receiving consistent or fair standards in scientific inquiry.

Many people mistakenly believe that if science hasn't confirmed something, we cannot claim to know it. — Sam26

And many people don't. The problem is that the scientific studies that have been made on this have not found any conclusive evidence of consciousness existing apart from the brain. The problem isn't that science hasn't 'confirmed' it. Its that there's no scientific evidence for consciousness after death that passes muster. Its why science also hasn't confirmed Big Foot or unicorns. That's why you're not going to a scientific forum to publish this, but a philosophy forum. You want to bypass the people who will clearly point out why you are wrong because this is a genuine neuroscientific exploration, not philosophical exploration.

Our deepest convictions about meaning, morality, and relationships transcend purely empirical methods. — Sam26

That is because we lack empirical alternatives. We do not lack empirical alternatives to explore consciousness surviving brain death. There has been, to my mind, no scientifically peer reviewed experiment that demonstrates consciousness survives after death. Willfully denying empirical evidence is irrational. You can believe someone loves you, but if evidence is found clearly that they tried to murder you, you rationally come to accept they don't in fact love you.

What's missing is a genuinely neutral investigation, one that neither assumes NDEs are glimpses of the afterlife nor dismisses them as dying brain phenomena. This requires examining the testimonial evidence with the same rigor we'd apply to any important knowledge claim, whether in science, law, or history. It means developing clear criteria for when testimony provides genuine knowledge versus mere anecdote. — Sam26

We already have that. No one doubts that people experience NDEs. They are real to the person experiencing them. That doesn't mean that one's vivid experiences correlate correctly with complete brain death, or that these vivid experiences accurately are an accurate interpretation of reality. We already know that testimonial evidence can be unreliable while conscious, much less unconscious. https://carleton.scholaris.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/c320ba1c-a9dc-44b9-b161-3052bfba78d3/content

Considering you have not answered many of the criticisms noted about near death experiences, and you're still pushing this thread, I would ask yourself why you're dodging points that need answers and trying to skirt around this. This isn't philosophy. This is an obsession.

You wouldn't know philosophy if it jumped up and bit you.

↪Philosophim You wouldn't know philosophy if it jumped up and bit you. — Sam26

The fact you only responded with an insult should be telling to yourself Sam.

An impressive synopsis, clearly written and well-argued.

Something leaped out at me - my dear other’s family belong to a traditionalist Christian sect, and one of the hymns they sing echoes this passage:

’and beheld a cosmic pillar of light "straighter than a rainbow" that held the universe together.’ (From The Republic) — Sam26

From the hymn:

Guide me, oh thou great Jehovah: (excerpt)
Open now the crystal fountain
Whence the healing waters flow
Let the fiery, cloudy pillar
Lead me all my journey through

That phrase ‘crystal fountain’ always struck me as an esoteric reference. Perhaps one of your ‘shared patterns’.

Religiously, NDEs challenge dogmatic narratives, particularly those centered on eternal punishment. — Sam26

There was one book published about NDE’s by Sam Berchholz, a publisher of Buddhist literature in the US. He underwent an NDE whilst having heart surgery, but his vision of the afterlife was of hell rather than heaven. He wrote about it in an illustrated book, A Guided Tour of Hell (although I’ll acknowledge that I haven’t bought or read it.) The thrust of it seems to be the urgent necessity of overcoming selfishness and greed in this life, as there are many beings in these ‘lower realms’. I thought it might be worth mentioning as an outlier, perhaps. It can’t be all rainbows and sunshine, considering what people get up to in their lives.

Another, more well-known NDA case that might be of interest is A J Ayer, the famous British philosopher and evangelical atheist, known for his rigorous criticisms of religion and metaphysics. Late in life he nearly died as a consequence of choking on some food, and (somewhat incredulously) reported on his own NDE. It seems to have changed his views on materialism, although he remained adamantly atheist. Recounting the story, and also its similarity to a report by a friend, he acknowledged:

On the face of it, these experiences, on the assumption that the last one was veridical, are rather strong evidence that death does not put an end to consciousness. Does it follow that there is a future life? Not necessarily. The trouble is that there are different criteria for being dead, which are indeed logically compatible but may not always be satisfied together. — A J Ayer, What I saw when I was Dead

It did at least plant the seed of doubt in his confident physicalism.

Anyway - admire your persistence with this work.

Thanks, but that was just the 'Preliminary' material, i.e., the setup for the book. The actual argument is in chapter 3.

About 10% of NDEs are negative, and of the negative reports, only a small portion of those are hell-like. However, what I've noticed is that there are no warnings given to people that they're in danger of going to hell, which I find interesting. It's interesting because one might think that if they were in danger of hell, people on the other side would warn them, but this never occurs. They may interpret things they see as hell, but that doesn't mean there is a hell like Christians envision. As far as I can tell, there are no demons, no Satan, and no eternal punishment. I would say that no religion has a correct view of the afterlife.

It's also true that about 10% or higher of the reports on NDEs are fake. Some really famous NDE stories probably aren't true. I'm not saying A.J. Ayer's story isn't true; I'm just saying that people, especially on YouTube, create these stories to get clicks. I've studied over 5,000 NDEs, so I generally know when to be skeptical.

Thanks for the compliment.

This isn't philosophy. This is an obsession. — Philosophim

I replied the way I did because of comments like the one I quoted above. I guess anyone who studies a subject for 20, 30, or 40 years could be called obsessive.

If you believe X, and you argue for a particular conclusion, then you're doing philosophy. It may be bad philosophy, but it's still philosophy. It doesn't matter what the subject matter is. It could be about chess, politics, ethics, mathematics, quantum theory, or Bigfoot; all of it involves philosophy to one degree or another. Even theology has a certain amount of philosophy connected with it. So, I'm not sure where you get your definition of philosophy, but to say I'm not doing philosophy tells me you don't understand what philosophy is.

The idea that NDEs behave as a sixth sense is actually in conflict with the idea that NDEs are evidence of Cartesian dualism; for how are the experiences of a disembodied consciousness supposed to be transferred to the physical body as is necessary for the wakeful patient to remember and verbally report his NDE?

Suppose NDE's amount to a sixth sense: then either NDEs are non-physical events associated with a disembodied conscousness, in which case NDEs cannot be remembered by a physical human being - by definition of "physical" being causally closed, else NDE's are the product of a physical sixth sense of a non-visible but physically extended body, in which case consciousness wasn't physically disembodied after all during the NDE, ergo NDEs aren't proof of consciousness surviving physical death with respect to the extended concept of the physical body that includes the NDE.

I replied the way I did because of comments like the one I quoted above. — Sam26

And what about the other points?

If you believe X, and you argue for a particular conclusion, then you're doing philosophy. — Sam26

Not at all. When two people argue whether Gandalf the grey was 6 feet tall or 5 foot 11, they are not doing philosophy. Philosophy is 'the love of wisdom'. It is about using logic, not merely belief, to construct an outlook that is based brick by brick on the premises before it. Good philosophy does not avoid the knowledge of the day, and encourages testing and challenging its ideas where possible. It is not stubborn, but flexible.

My issue Sam is not your insistence that NDEs mean the brain survives death. You can believe that if you want. That's called faith, and I have nothing against faith as long as it doesn't assert that because you feel strongly about it, it makes it real. I find it fun to talk about plausible outcomes like time travel, immortality of the soul, and all manner of fiction. But I don't forget that's what they are. I don't insist because it would be cool, make me feel awesome, or just be great that it means they're real.

The problem is you are trying to insist that they are real, and ignoring the counterpoints that show they are not. I wouldn't mind if you were trying to address the counter points, setting up new experiments, or finding new information that no one knew. But you're not. You're avoiding the real evidence that blows a hole through your claim to rest on the emotional side that makes you feel good. Since we can't scientifically measure subjective experience, you're leaning on that as if it somehow provides an answer to the failed objective tests. It won't.

I was in religion for years Sam. I know its patterns, what its like, and its draw. I know the emotions behind believing in something that isn't real, like God. But its not real. Its just group think based on emotions that make us feel great things about ourselves and the world. I'm here to tell you, you can have all of that without faith. When you start looking at the absolute wonder that the world is, without the need of some 'unknown' spirits or Gods, its still a marvel that anything exists at all. You don't lose anything by giving up crusades to prove that which isn't real, you have what you had before and actually apply it to real issues instead.

My language may not convey it, but I am an intensely curious person, quick to laugh at the lighter side of life, charitable, and admire the beauty of nature. I have everything you have emotionally without having to lie to myself or try to prove that which is already known not to be. There's so much to explore and think about out there Sam. You have passion, that will transfer to something meaningful. Maybe you'll volunteer for charity to ensure that people who do live, have a nicer time on this planet. Maybe you'll get deeper into neuroscience. Teach the kids around you wisdom to better handle life. So many more ways to spend your talents and efforts then on something which you simply want to prove but cannot.

:100:

:up: :up:

@Sam26

The idea that NDEs behave as a sixth sense is actually in conflict with the idea that NDEs are evidence of Cartesian dualism; for how are the experiences of a disembodied consciousness supposed to be transferred to the physical body as is necessary for the wakeful patient to remember and verbally report his NDE? — sime

That’s a valid question—but perhaps what’s really at stake is our concept of what counts as “physical” and how information is encoded and retrieved in living systems. Even in animals, we find forms of memory and orientation that are difficult to explain within current neurobiological or straightforwardly genetic models. Take, for example, pond eels in suburban Sydney that migrate thousands of kilometers to spawn near New Caledonia—crossing man-made obstacles like golf courses along ancestral routes. After years in the open ocean, their offspring return to the very same suburban ponds (ref). It’s hard to see how this kind of precise memory is passed on physically, and yet it plainly occurs.

Even more dramatically, the research of psychiatrist Ian Stevenson, though often met with skepticism, presents another challenge. Over several decades, he documented more than 2,500 cases of young children recalling specific details of previous lives with the details being validated against extensive documentary evidence and witness testimony. Often what they said was well beyond what the children could plausibly have learned by ordinary means and conveyed knowledge of people and events that they could only have learned about from experience. Stevenson was cautious in drawing conclusions - he never claimed that his research proved that reincarnation occured, but that these cases showed features suggestive of memory transfer beyond what conventional physical mechanisms could explain.

Both examples—the eels and the children—don’t necessarily prove anything metaphysical, but they do suggest that our current physicalist assumptions may be too narrow. Near-death experiences might be pointing in the same direction: not toward disembodiment in a Cartesian sense, but toward a broader view of mind and memory that isn't strictly brain-bound.

That’s a valid question—but perhaps what’s really at stake is our concept of what counts as “physical” and how information is encoded and retrieved in living systems. Even in animals, we find forms of memory and orientation that are difficult to explain within current neurobiological or straightforwardly genetic models. Take, for example, pond eels in suburban Sydney that migrate thousands of kilometers to spawn near New Caledonia—crossing man-made obstacles like golf courses along ancestral routes. After years in the open ocean, their offspring return to the very same suburban ponds (ref). It’s hard to see how this kind of precise memory is passed on physically, and yet it plainly occurs. — Wayfarer

The mechanics of cognitive externalism are generally considered to be physical, as when resorting to a calculator to do arithmetic or when a robot is programmed to navigate using landmarks. Cognitive externalism is a good counterargument for rejecting the conception of intelligence as an attribute of closed and isolated systems, but it further undermines the paranormal significance of testimonies in the present context.

By definition, physical concepts are causally-closed and intersubjective.

Even more dramatically, the research of psychiatrist Ian Stevenson, though often met with skepticism, presents another challenge. Over several decades, he documented more than 2,500 cases of young children recalling specific details of previous lives with the details being validated against extensive documentary evidence and witness testimony. Often what they said was well beyond what the children could plausibly have learned by ordinary means and conveyed knowledge of people and events that they could only have learned about from experience. Stevenson was cautious in drawing conclusions - he never claimed that his research proved that reincarnation occured, but that these cases showed features suggestive of memory transfer beyond what conventional physical mechanisms could explain. — Wayfarer

Similar logical problems ensure. For example, I cannot remember what I ate for breakfast on this very day last year, and yet this doesn't seem to matter with regards to anyone's identification of me as being the "same" person from last year up to the present. In fact i suspect that self- identitication over time is as much a product of amnesia as it is of memory recall, and that identification over time is more a case of redefining definitional criteria for personhood, as opposed to applying a priori definitional criteria.

Memories are cognitive processes in, and of, the present; yesterday's newpaper isn't evidence that we occupy a block universe, namely the silly idea that persists in physics of an archive that stores an inaccessible copy of yesterday. So why should memories be considered to be a necessary or sufficient condition for identifying personhood across lives, if memories aren't literally past referring and if they are in any case inessential for reidentification within a life?

The mechanics of cognitive externalism are generally considered to be physical — sime

That’s true if one assumes from the outset that “the physical” is by definition causally closed and fully intersubjective. But that’s precisely the point at issue. To say that cognitive externalism operates—as in your example of a robot using landmarks—is to presume a mechanistic model where all cognitive content is traceable to physical causation. Yet the eels returning to ancestral ponds doesn’t conform neatly to that model as it suggests information persistence and access without clear causal pathways, at least not in the standard physicalist sense. But then, I suppose the definition of physical can be adjusted to suit such anomalies. It’s one of the attributes which gives it such persistence.

I cannot remember what I ate for breakfast on this very day last year, and yet this doesn't seem to matter with regards to anyone's identification of me as being the "same" person from last year up to the present. — sime

t’s not a question of personal identity. The issue isn’t whether episodic memory is necessary for self-continuity, but whether our current conceptual framework is adequate to accommodate the kinds of anomalous phenomena reported in NDEs—particularly veridical perceptions occurring during states of minimal or absent brain activity. Even if we remain agnostic about interpretation, such cases are at least analogically suggestive of cognitive processes that are not easily reducible to brain function alone.

An impressive synopsis, clearly written and well-argued. — Wayfarer

That's the rough draft of the first chapter of my book. It's not an argument. In chapter 3, I'll make the inductive argument. In chapter 2, I set up the epistemology. In chapter 4, I'll take on the critics. I find most of the criticisms rather weak, so it won't be difficult. Thanks for your response and the kind words.

I don't spend much time responding because I'm trying to finish my book. I'll post here and there, but that's about it. I'll probably post on how the epistemology works within the scope of NDEs. The problem with most of the critics in this forum is that their epistemology is too narrow. My epistemology is a JTB model, but with a Wittgensteinian twist, so it's not a traditional JTB route. It incorporates Wittgenstein's language games (e.g., the language games of justification), his hinge propositions, and other related ideas.

For those of you who haven't read it already, some of my epistemology can be seen in my recent paper: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/995416

I would add that the ultimate hinge is love.

the inductive argument. — Sam26

Hume? Keynes? Popper? ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction#Formulation_of_the_problem

Just read any good logic book, and it will explain inductive reasoning. There are weak inductive arguments and strong inductive arguments depending on the amount of data or evidence. I explained this early in my thread. Most of science is based on inductive reasoning. The conclusions are probabilistic, unlike deductive arguments, where the conclusion follows necessarily if it's sound. Most of our everyday reasoning is inductive. All of the reasoning against my argument is inductive.

At the end of chapter 3 of my book, I give the following inductive argument with premises and a conclusion. Chapter 3 has much more depth to it than I'm giving here. This argument may be revised.

Logical Summary:

The Inductive Argument for Consciousness Survival

Based on the systematic analysis presented in this chapter, the central argument can be formulated as follows:

Core Premises:

P1: Extensive Testimonial Database - Millions of individuals across documented medical settings report near-death experiences involving conscious awareness during verified clinical death (estimated 400-800 million cases globally, with over 4,000 detailed firsthand accounts in academic databases).

P2: Universal Demographic Distribution - These reports occur uniformly across all variables that might indicate bias: age (including pre-verbal children), culture (Western, Indigenous, Asian, African), prior beliefs (including committed atheists), education level, and sensory capability (including congenitally blind individuals).

P3: Invariant Core Phenomenology - Despite demographic diversity, reports converge on identical structural elements: accurate out-of-body environmental perception, directed movement toward luminous phenomena, encounters with deceased individuals, comprehensive life reviews, and consistent psychological transformation patterns.

P4: Objective Verification Protocol - A substantial subset of cases includes independently corroborated details: specific medical equipment described accurately, verbatim conversations recorded by witnesses, precise environmental observations confirmed by multiple sources, and encounters with deceased individuals whose deaths were unknown to the experiencer.

P5: Optimal Testimonial Conditions - Reports satisfy established criteria for reliable testimony: immediate temporal proximity to events, firsthand rather than hearsay accounts, credible sources without apparent ulterior motives, and systematic documentation by medical professionals and researchers.

Methodological Foundation:

These premises satisfy the five classical criteria for strong inductive arguments:

• Numerical Sufficiency: Evidence volume exceeds standards applied to accepted historical and scientific conclusions
• Source Diversity: Universal distribution eliminates explanations based on cultural conditioning, selection bias, or demographic limitations
• Phenomenological Consistency: Identical core features across diverse populations indicate encounters with objective rather than subjective phenomena
• Independent Corroboration: Objective verification transforms subjective reports into testimonial evidence meeting legal and scientific standards
• Testimonial Reliability: Evidence meets or exceeds standards applied in historical research, legal proceedings, and scientific peer review

Logical Inference:

When testimonial evidence satisfies these methodological criteria across millions of cases with consistent objective corroboration, the most parsimonious explanation is that the reported phenomena correspond to objective reality rather than representing systematic delusion, cultural construction, or neurological artifact.

Alternative explanations (hallucination, cultural conditioning, false memory formation) fail to account for the evidence's specific features: objective corroboration during documented unconsciousness, consistency across belief systems and cultures, and enhanced rather than diminished consciousness during compromised brain states.

Conclusion:

Therefore, consciousness demonstrably persists beyond the death of the physical body, constituting strong inductive evidence that some form of awareness survives bodily death.

Evidential Status:

This conclusion achieves the same epistemic standing as well-established historical facts and scientific theories that rest on inductive reasoning from testimonial evidence. While inductive conclusions remain probabilistic rather than absolutely certain, the convergent evidence from millions of independently corroborated cases justifies rational confidence that consciousness survival beyond bodily death represents an objective phenomenon requiring serious theoretical accommodation rather than dismissive explanation.

The argument's strength derives not from any single case but from the systematic convergence of extensive, diverse, and independently verified testimonial evidence that meets established standards for reliable knowledge formation.

@Sam26, I also find NDEs fascinating and I am interested in your research.
Quick question... NDE reports show a remarkable convergence of 'themes' and descriptions among people of different cultures, life experiences and so on.
It seems to me, however, that there is no evidence that two NDEs can be exactly the same. That is, they can be very similar and this is quite interesting. But IMO from the accounts I have read, the reports show differences that can't be explained only by referring to their different cultural backgrounds. So, I would say this might raise skepticism for taking these reports literally as in the case of, say, two people that travel to the same city and then give you the account of that journey. A guess that my question is: do we have sufficient evidence that these experience give us 'faithful' descriptions of the same 'reality' and not dscriptions of similar yet ultimately different 'realities'? This doesn't seem to be a point that is addressed with sufficiently depth in other works on the topic I read.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily imply that NDEs are completely non-veridical and cannot serve as reliable testimonary evidences. Still, I wonder in your view how these subtle differences are to explained.

It seems to me, however, that there is no evidence that two NDEs can be exactly the same. That is, they can be very similar and this is quite interesting. But IMO from the accounts I have read, the reports show differences that can't be explained only by referring to their different cultural backgrounds. — boundless

No two experiences, whether NDEs or everyday perceptions, are ever exactly identical, even among people sharing the same event in the same moment. Even witnesses at a car accident: Their accounts vary based on vantage point, attention, emotions, and memory, yet the core facts often align. This subjectivity is a hallmark of human consciousness, and it applies powerfully to NDEs. Research consistently shows that while NDEs share striking similarities (suggesting a possible universal mechanism), individual differences go beyond cultural backgrounds, influenced by personal psychology, expectations, neurobiology, and worldviews.

A 2024 Taylor & Francis review of NDEs across cultures and history found high similarity in features like out-of-body experiences (OBEs), encounters with light or beings, life reviews, and feelings of peace, appearing in approximately 60-80% of global reports. These similarities hold even when controlling for cultural expectations (e.g., Westerners might see Jesus, while Easterners describe Yama, but the "being of light" archetype persists). This is not unusual; it happens in our everyday experiences, too.

Your critique of my work reflects a surprisingly limited and elitist perspective on philosophy, misrepresenting both this discussion and the epistemological depth of this thread and my upcoming book, while also restricting a field that should be accessible to all. You say philosophy is solely “the love of wisdom” built on logic, dismissing belief-based arguments as mere fiction or faith. That’s not just a misreading of my project, it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of philosophy itself, reducing philosophy to a sterile caricature. Let me show how your definition excludes the very essence of philosophical inquiry and ignores its broad, inclusive nature, which this thread and my book on NDEs embrace through a disciplined, evidence-based framework.

First, your assertion that arguing from belief isn’t philosophy, likening my NDE work to debating Gandalf’s height, is absurdly reductive. Philosophy isn’t an ivory-tower club for logic-chopping purists; it’s the systematic exploration of life’s big questions, engaged by everyone from Socrates to the average person pursuing meaning in a coffee shop. As I argue in my book, epistemology, a core branch, is precisely about how we form and justify beliefs, whether about black holes, morality, or NDEs. Your example of Gandalf is a false analogy; it’s fiction, while NDE testimonies involve real people reporting verifiable experiences, like accurate surgical details during flatlined EEGs, documented in peer-reviewed studies (e.g., 2024 ScienceDirect on consciousness continuity). To claim this isn’t philosophy because it starts with belief (all knowledge starts with belief, then moves to being justified and true) is to dismiss the entire field of epistemology, from Plato onward. Ever heard of Descartes? His meditations began with personal belief in a deceiving god, hardly “brick-by-brick” logic, yet undeniably philosophy.

You sneer that my work is “faith” or “religion,” not philosophy, because I explore consciousness survival. That’s not just a personal jab, it’s a philosophical embarrassment. Philosophy has always tackled the speculative: Leibniz on possible worlds, Kant on noumena, even Chalmers on the hard problem of consciousness. Dismissing this as non-philosophical because it’s not yet “proven” ignores how philosophy engages open questions. Ever read Hume? He argued we can’t know causation, yet we philosophize about it daily. Everyone, yes, everyone, philosophizes when they question what they know, from kids asking “why” to scientists debating dark matter. Your gatekeeping excludes this universal human practice.

Your claim that I’m “avoiding evidence” and leaning on subjective experience is laughable. My book and this thread confront counterpoints head-on. Philosophy’s job isn’t to wait for science’s final verdict; it’s to build frameworks for what’s knowable now, which I do by integrating testimony, sensory experience, and logic. You’d see this if your view of philosophy wasn’t so myopically based.

Finally, your patronizing advice to “apply my passion” elsewhere, charity, neuroscience, teaching kids, reveals your contempt for philosophical inquiry into the profound. Questioning consciousness survival isn’t a distraction; it’s a core issue in metaphysics and epistemology, with implications for ethics and existence. A 2024 Taylor & Francis review shows NDEs’ cross-cultural consistency, suggesting a universal phenomenon worth exploring. If you think philosophy should only chase “real issues,” you’re not loving wisdom; you’re stifling it. Everyone philosophizes when they grapple with reality’s edges, from NDErs to skeptics like you. My book and this thread invite that universal engagement, rigorously and openly. Step up and do philosophy, not your blinkered dogma about what counts as philosophy.

Instead of pretending to understand philosophy, how about learning some philosophy? I don't think you understand basic logic.

P1: Extensive Testimonial Database - Millions of individuals across documented medical settings report near-death experiences involving conscious awareness during verified clinical death (estimated 400-800 million cases globally, with over 4,000 detailed firsthand accounts in academic databases). — Sam26

• Evidence of those "millions of individuals"?

• "Estimated 400-800 million cases" how and by whom?

• "Over 4,000" is a three-five orders of magnitude smaller sample than the alleged "millions" and consists of highly unreliable¹ "first hand accounts" instead of objective corroboration by controlled experiments – what about scientific evidence?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony#Reliability [1]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0065260108004012 [1]

For me, until the questions above are satisfactorily addressed, the first premise (P1) is, at best, incoherent and, therefore, your inductive argument is not sound very weak (i.e. not credible).

P4: Objective Verification Protocol - A substantial subset of cases includes independently corroborated details ...

• Lacking controlled experiments?

For me, the fourth premise (P4) is incoherent and, therefore, your inductive argument is not sound very weak (i.e. not credible).

P5: Optimal Testimonial Conditions - Reports satisfy established criteria for reliable testimony: immediate temporal proximity to events, firsthand rather than hearsay accounts, credible sources without apparent ulterior motives, and systematic documentation by medical professionals and researchers.

Nonsense ... (see both links below P1).

@Philosophim Your critique of my work reflects a surprisingly limited and elitist perspective on philosophy, misrepresenting ... — Sam26

You're projecting again, Sam.