It's true that the testimonial evidence for NDEs in terms of their reliability do not meet the terms you've outlined. I recently did a search to find if there have been any statistical analyses done by anyone that would meet the requirements as put forth in your argument. It seems that the University of Virginia is in the process of doing just such an analysis. I do think it's important to consider this kind of research.

There is a peer-reviewed Journal of Near-Death studies that I've been reading, but I haven't read all of the articles, which I would like to do. For what it's worth there are some scientists that have concluded that NDEs do present evidence of consciousness surviving the body. However, just because there are scientists who agree with me or anyone else, that isn't evidence that an argument is well justified.

I'm only interested in the arguments, not whether the argument fits a particular world view. I've criticized Christians because the evidence to support their beliefs is based on very weak testimonial evidence, so I'm not interested in falling into the same trap. My critique of, for example, the resurrection was based on the same analysis used in this thread, so I've applied what I believe are the criteria that should be used to analyze testimonial evidence. This analysis is not a scientific analysis, which is what your analysis would require. It's an analysis based on the logic of an inductive argument, that is, I used the same criteria that makes a strong inductive argument.

Another important point about my argument is that I'm saying that one can know apart from a scientific analysis that testimonial evidence is good evidence based on my criteria. On the other hand, it's extremely important when dealing with subjects of this sort to have such an analysis done.

I've listened to critics of NDEs, and for the most part I find them lacking. Especially after having spent as much time as I have analyzing the testimony. Most of these critics are so disinclined to believe the testimony that they do not spend much time analyzing the data. Actually Fdrake your argument is one of the best I've seen in terms of how we should look at the data. But based on the evidence I've looked at, especially the consistency of the reports, I'm more than inclined to believe the testimonials.

My point would be that a reasonable person can conclude that these testimonials are strong support for consciousness surviving the body. Now if it can be shown that there is another explanation for these NDEs, then that's something that should be considered. However, in my studies I have found nothing that could explain these testimonials.

My next post will address some of the specifics of your argument.

I don't think we can check if she literally saw the implement, descriptions of experience are all we have to go on. There are plenty of other things she could've noticed and provided a precise description of - I gave a couple of examples in my post. I'm not saying for certain that we can rule out that Pam somehow observed the events in the room via an OBE, I'm saying that there are enough mitigating or problematic points in the video to render it not evidence of the veridicality of NDEs. I attempted to portray what actually would be strong evidence that an NDE was veridical in my post. — fdrake

There are enough other things that she describes to reasonably infer that she saw what she claims to have seen. Furthermore, the doctors and nurses were impressed by what she said she saw and heard. None of this, however, is dependent on any one piece of testimonial evidence, as I'm sure you understand. Most of this boils down to whether one believes the testimonials, and whether they are consistent. There are plenty of studies done by doctors and others who have also concluded that these testimonials have a consistent ring across many cultures.

The fact that there are consistent groups of themes within NDEs is interesting, but is not evidence that the NDEs are observing something 'out there' which is real. You can see the same thing with the many religions which include 'tree of life' imagery; they are incompatible accounts of purportedly real phenomena with common mythopoetic structures. I think it's also plausible that the consistencies observed in NDE and other mystical experiences can be generated by there being an encultured, primordial mythopoetic structure with broad parameters - life/death imagery, revelation, calm/home feelings, out of body experiences, otherworldly visitations... — fdrake

You don't see this with many religions, it's not the same at all. Most religious experiences are totally subjective, that is, there is no way to verify what people are claiming on a subjective level. Many of these testimonials have an objective component to them. For example, one can verify the accuracy of these testimonials by interviewing others who were there (Doctors, nurses, family, and friends). The claims are that while outside their bodies they saw X, these things can be verified. The claims are that they heard X, this can be verified.

What I find is that people reject the evidence not because they have good arguments, but because they have a world view that denies any such belief. The evidence for me is overwhelming. There are just too many of these to deny that consciousness is limited to a physical body.

I don't know how you explain people looking at themselves from a third person perspective when they have no brain activity and no heart beat. The claim is also that the reality they are experiencing is more vivid than what we experience normally. Their sensory experiences are heightened, not lessoned. This is a common theme among many who have had the experience. It's common among a whole host of people, including atheists, religious people, very young people, and across a wide variety of cultures.

Using your criteria fdrake one could explain away almost any experience one finds questionable. Some of your criteria written early on demands too much of testimonial evidence. Most of what we believe and accept is based on testimony - what we read and listen to. However, I'm not saying that one should accept any testimonial evidence, which is why I spent time going over what an argument should look like based on testimonial evidence.

That said, I appreciate your responses even if I disagree. At least you didn't start the conversation by saying this is BS. Moreover, as I said earlier, you did what I wanted someone to do, that is, give a reasoned argument against my argument. I didn't respond to all of your points, but I did read them.

You are suffering from late onset Holden Caulfield Syndrome. Everybody is a phony and everything is a gimmick. You get hung up on semantics. Nothing can be proven. You are experiencing ennui, anomie, alienation, depersonalization. Life has become one big headache.

You feel bad. What can be done about it?

My suggestion is that you immediately embark on a program of acting like life is meaningful and entirely worth living and that what you do with you life in the near future matters.

You will probably say, "your advice is just one more gimmick" and you would be partially right. But as gimmicks go, it has some advantages over wallowing in the slough of despond.

William James, an American psychologist (the first Professor of Psychology at Harvard) observed that there is a clear relationship between how we behave, act, feel and think. If the kind of thoughts we have are not helping us, then we need to act. . So, if you want to feel alive and engaged in a meaningful life, then you need to begin living AS IF you were engaged in a meaningful life.

I don't know anything about you, except that you are human (presumably not a bot) and that your psychology is pretty much like everybody else's. So go find yourself something to do that you suspect might be a meaningful, socially useful, and interesting gimmick. Then stick with it. Find several socially useful, interesting, and personally meaningful gimmicks to keep your mind occupied by positive things instead of negative crap. But the important thing is ACT LIKE YOU WANT TO FEEL. — Bitter Crank

This is good advice for all.

Thanks

(1) The NDE experience contains vague rather than precise descriptions of events. This is the case for the woman in the video's NDE-perception of a 'tooth-brush like device' in the room, which could fit any tool with a mechanical base and rotating upper part. This could describe lots of surgical tools. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case for every report as I'm sure there are very precisely described events in some NDE accounts that match the videos quite faithfully.

I think it would be fair to remove these cases from the veridical NDEs, since a trained liar could produce these statements. Such as 'there were at least 15 people in the room', 'there was a scalpel used by a woman to make an incision around my head". This may account for the woman in the video's 'there are 20 doctors' in the room statement, but we cannot obtain information one way or the other without access to her first description of the event [which was articulated with the doctor, so there is confounding]. — fdrake

I look at testimony in terms of the whole, and I think it's important to take into account how people with no medical knowledge might describe things they see. If someone without medical knowledge was in the room, it's quite probable that they would describe things imprecisely. Just as people would do in their everyday lives, so I don't think this would necessarily mitigate the testimony. Although it might if we didn't have as many testimonials as we have (literally millions). What I find interesting in Pam's video, is that the doctors were confounded by her description of the experience. The fact that the doctors were baffled doesn't necessarily mean that she had an OBE, but it does suggest that her description was very unusual given her state.

What I mean by taking her experience as a whole, as opposed to picking out one or two things that might be explained in other ways, is the following: Does her description of the events in question match what others have described in terms of her metaphysical experiences. So, not only are we considering what she describes while in surgery, but does what she said match what others claim to have seen in their experiences. We are also considering things that some might find unimportant, but are important in terms of the truthfulness of their statements. For example, remarks that some might skip over like feeling very light while outside the body, which would be in keeping with not having gravitational effects. Also, how they describe their communication experience, viz., mind-to-mind. These are small things that you might find unimportant, but can tell you something about the veracity of their testimony in terms of how it lines up with other testimonials.

I think we can require more than what we would normally require in testimonial evidence. Any piece of testimony can be questioned to the point where we wonder if it's true or not. There are a myriad of ways to dismiss testimonial evidence, or to dismiss experiences that are out of the ordinary. That said, because these testimonials are making fantastic claims they do require more analysis.

Again, as I've said many times I find the consistency of these testimonials remarkable. Whenever you're looking at the testimony of a large number of people, even in normal testimonials we find inconsistencies. This is why testimonial evidence is generally weak, but as in an inductive argument, the conclusion is either strong or weak based on the kind of evidence. This is why my early evaluation of what makes testimonial evidence strong is important.

I will make other comments later.

This was the video I was referring too. Thanks for the replies, I'll give a response a bit later, don't have time right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8scc2YbXUk

My argument turns on this idea of conditional reports. I can state it more precisely now, with reference to the previous 'door seeing' example. Say there are 200 people in my door seeing study. I only expose 100 of them to the door. I then record self reports of whether they see the door or not. I think if this experiment was conducted, close to 100% of the people who saw the door would say that there was a door then, this makes the condition probability of seeing the door given being exposed to the door close to 100%. I am claiming this is good evidence because of high consistency in the reports of people who have been exposed to the door. It is irrelevant that 50% of the people in the study didn't see the door.

So let's apply this to NDEs, do we observe very consistent regularity in the reported content of people who have experienced NDEs? No, there are many different stories. This means that exposure to an NDE doesn't (probabilistically) entail having a particular experience. Whereas exposure to the door does (probabilistically) entail seeing the door. — fdrake

So to sum up your position, if I understand it correctly, you're basically saying that the reports are not consistent enough to make the claim that they are seeing X. I would say that your analogy is not quite the same kind of experience. First, the experience is much more complex than seeing a door. The experience is more akin to the following: Let's assume we have a 100k sq. ft. building, and let us further assume that we interviewed 100 people who just left the building, people exiting from different doors, and some exiting from the same doors. As in any complex experience, where we are observing things from a variety of positions and perspectives, we are going to get a variety of reports and experiences. The question arises, how do we know based on so many different experiences and reports that all 100 people were in the same building? The only way to know would be the consistency of the reports, that is, a large number of people would have to be reporting some of the same things. It would be like putting the pieces of a puzzle together. As each report is made we begin to see that a particular picture of the building emerges, and based on the consistency of the reports we can draw conclusions about the building based on that picture.

My own studies have included between 3500 and 4000 reports, which is a fairly large sampling. It has also included talking with people who have had the experience. I have found that although there are differences in the reports, there are also enough similarities to give credence to what people are reporting. Not only have I concluded based on these studies that there are enough consistent reporting to warrant my conclusions, but others who have studied the same material have also concluded the same thing.

Fdrake, if you have time, watch the video that MikeL provided a link to in the post above, and tell me what you think. Your responses are the kind of responses I was looking for.

I would suggest listening to this video if you have the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8scc2YbXUk

Have you seen this, Sam? About consciousness, death and brain activity. I'm only skimming, but I think you might find it interesting. — MikeL

I have listened to him before, but didn't see that video. Thanks MikeL. I'm going to post this link in another thread too.

IE, if most people do not experience a specific NDE event (like love or disembodiment, in the list of 15) given that they have had an NDE and that they have almost died, then there's grounds for doubting the veridicality of the experience. 15% of people have had an NDE in those conditions in America according to a Gallup poll, of these 9% reported the classic out of body experience, 11% said they had entered another realm and 8% had encountered otherworldly beings. Assuming these categories are independent and exhaustive, you can obtain that 72% of people who had an NDE experienced nothing contained in the list or nothing at all. I'd be surprised if they were exhaustive, but it still looks like the majority of people who had an NDE couldn't categorise it according to listed tropes in the poll OR alternatively they nearly died and experienced nothing. — fdrake

It's true that most people who are near death, or have had some experience that brings them near death don't experience any of the listed testimonial reports. However, I don't see how this negates the millions of consistent reports of those that have. All of us have experiences that most people haven't had, that doesn't mean that my experiences are any less real, or that my reports of those experiences are doubtful in the same sense you're doubting NDEs. You seem to be concluding that because more people haven't had the experience that that somehow makes the millions of experiences of those who have had the experience doubtful. It does raise questions, I agree, but I don't see that it means that what people are experiencing in these NDEs is any less veridical.

For example, less take our experiences in everyday life, if I'm at a party with 100 other people and 15 of these people claim that X happened, and that those closest to the experience or who claim to have had the same experience agree that X happened, then your claim is that X probably didn't happen. Your claim is based not on counter-evidence, but on the fact that the 85 other people at the party didn't report those same experiences, or that they have no recollection of X happening. But all they are saying is that they didn't have the experience. If they had the experience and reported completely different reports, then I would say that you have an argument, but that's not what their saying. Their saying, I was at the party but didn't experience what those 15 people experienced.

Being near death doesn't always bring on the experience. I think that's the most you can say about your argument. Besides being near death is not a near death experience. What I mean is this, an NDE is defined as having, for one thing, an out-of-body experience. If your near death and don't experience the out-of-body experience, then you haven't had an NDE in the sense I'm talking about. All of the reports are about OBEs, not just being near death. It's like my example, they were at the party, but weren't in the living room to experience what the 15 experienced.

Your using the term NDE to refer to any experience that bring one close to death, or even brings one to the place where there is no measurable brain or heart activity. This is definitely one of the uses of this term. However, there is another use of the term that includes an out-of-body experience, and this is the way I'm using the term NDE.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond fdrake.

Part of the problem is that people are so invested in a particular world view that they are not willing to consider non-materialist views, or even evidence that goes against their conclusions. For 40 years I considered myself a Christian, but when the evidence and arguments went against my beliefs I was willing to give up my religious beliefs. People get too dogmatic about their beliefs, and it happens not just with religious belief, but with other beliefs like politics, and even scientific beliefs.

Ya, I've heard those kinds of stories, but I don't just accept testimony because it sounds interesting. However, if the same kind of testimony is repeated by thousands of people, and what people saw can be verified by others, that is, can be corroborated by others who were in a position to know, then there might be something to it. It's more than, say, others saying yes the clock did stop when so-and-so died. If people made claims that they heard and saw things from a third person perspective, like conversations in another room, or doctors and nurses performing procedures on them when their heart and brain functions weren't descernible; and these claims can be verified, then there maybe something to the testimony. Moreover, if the claims keep happening over and over again, then there may be something to the testimony.

There is an analogy between moving from dream states to waking states that is very similar to moving from waking states to a state of disembodied consciousness that I find interesting. In dream states we generally find that our senses are somewhat dulled as compared to waking states. We also know that our knowledge of who we are is dumbed-down in dream states, and that knowledge in general is dumbed-down. Our memories are also affected, that is, we don't have access to most of our memories. Also our fears and our beliefs about being harmed are not real. Our perspective about dream reality changes after we wake up, we see the harm that was done in the dream from a perspective that almost totally mitigates, or even totally mitigates the harm we believed was done to us. All of these things happen when people have an NDE. Sensory experiences are heightened, knowledge is expanded, memories return, and we find that we weren't harmed at all. In fact, people find that nothing can harm them ultimately.

I have briefly looked at communication with the dead, but I haven't seen any good evidence that would compel me to think there is anything there. However, to be fair, I've only briefly studied the subject. If consciousness survives the death of the body it wouldn't surprise me that some kind of communication takes place, so I wouldn't say it's ridiculous, just not compelling at this point.

I'm not sure of your point BC. If your point is that these testimonials are of a similar sort, I would respectfully disagree. A lot of intelligent people believe a lot of things that are not substantiated including religious belief.

What I've presented is not hearsay, but is corroborated by others, and by definition it's not hearsay. Others who are able to verify the accuracy of the testimonials.

Did you watch the video I posted? I would suggest watching the video because it reflects the kind of evidence I'm talking about, even if you don't agree with it.

I can explain how consciousness doesn't need the body in a general way, but we don't have enough information to give a good explanation. I don't know if your point is to demonstrate that because we don't have a good explanation, that that somehow invalidates the testimonial evidence. If that is your point, I would simply say that there is much about quantum physics that we don't understand, but there is enough other evidence to suggest that it's true. The same is true of NDEs.

If these experiences do reflect a metaphysical reality, as I believe they do, then it seems that consciousness itself doesn't reside in the body at all, but resides and is dependent upon a separate energy source. After reflecting on this subject for years, it seems that the body is simply a receptacle for consciousness. From what others have experienced, we do keep a form after death, it's just a different form, but with higher sensory inputs. In fact, many have reported their memories returning to them, putting the existence of memories outside of the body and into a metaphysical form or body of some kind. I've come to believe that consciousness is at the bottom of reality itself. That we are part of a vast consciousness, and it is here that the true self resides with all of its memories and knowledge.

I don't think that the holographic model bolsters NDEs. My evidence is quite separate from that.

I agree.

I agree that memory and consciousness is not confined to the brain. I also agree that the holographic model is something important. In fact, some of the NDEs support the holographic model.

After studying these experiences it's interesting to compare what happens in dream states to what happens in terms of memory in these NDEs. There seem to be different levels of consciousness, and at least one level of consciousness is quite apart from the physical body.

Jeremiah you don't have a clue about what a good argument is. Just listen to yourself ramble about nothing, because you gave no good rebuttal besides philosophical jargon. I could get a ten year old to do that. Let's just agree to disagree unless you have a good rebuttal. Saying something is BS is NO argument - period.

I'm not simply giving a conviction, although I am doing that, I'm also giving good reasons, objective reasons to support a conclusion.

I'm not sure why people think that science is the only reasonable way of coming to know that something is the case. I know lots of things without pointing to the scientific method.

That one video is not necessarily enough to convince someone, but there is just too many accounts, and thus too much testimonial evidence for me to reject the testimony. This is one of the reasons I believe I know consciousness survives the body.

As I said before if that's not enough evidence (literally millions of accounts), then nothing would count as testimonial evidence. Thanks though for your responses.

It's true that experiences can occur without the actual events occurring, but this is not the case in these situations, at least a large portion of them. If you had a dream you were flying and you were able to describe actual events happening as you flew, that would be comparable to what we are describing here. We're talking about describing actual events along with other metaphysical events which makes one wonder if what their seeing is real. There are too many accounts that don't fit into what your making them out to be. Moreover, there are too many consistent metaphysical events described for it to be something other than real.

I'll sum the video up for you. Pam had an operation for an aneurysm in which the brain had to be completely drained of blood and the heart stopped. She was also being monitored for any brain activity, and there was none. Her eyes were taped shut and her hearing was blocked by ear plugs that gave off clicking sounds. She was wheeled into the operating room after she was put under, and yet she was able to describe things and conversations in that room from a third person perspective in detail. All of her testimony was verified by doctors and nurses who were there.

That's a fair question, but regardless of our inability to explain how a mind might work to explain the experience, there are too many things that speak to it being the case. We can't explain how or why we have dreams, or other experiences, but that doesn't mean the experiences aren't real.

Ya, I guess the evidence does stack the deck in my favor. That's my point. By the way give an argument. All you're doing is giving an opinion.

You watched that whole video.

Just as a point of interest, this really has nothing to do with religion (I know you're not saying it does), although people do use it to bolster religious belief. I find that if one looks at as many of these testimonials as I have (over 3500), and I've also talked with many who have had the experience, one cannot help but to conclude that not only are people wrong about their religious beliefs, but that these experiences tell us something very different about reality.

The problem with what you've said Banno is that people are seeing the same things. People are not only describing an alternate reality, but they also give accurate information about what was happening around their bodies. How does this take place in the example video I gave above when the brain has no measurable activity and has been drained of blood, and the heart has been stopped. She sees herself from a place above the operating table and is able to describe not only what happened to her in detail, but also describe the conversations. This is corroborated by doctors and nurses who were there.

To be honest if I had heard this testimony from just a few people I would agree with you, but there is just too much to ignore. Most don't deny that people are having the experience, however, they do try to explain it by appealing to other causal explanations. I have found no causal explanation that can explain the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO8UVebuA0g&t=4s

That's a good point, and it's one that has been addressed by those who have thought much about this subject. First, a brain starved of oxygen isn't going to give testimonials that relate that their experience in this state is even more vivid that normal experiences. Most people testify that this reality is dreamlike compared to their out-of-body experience. If anything they report experiences in which their sensory experiences are heightened, not dulled by a brain starved of oxygen.

Moreover, there are many thousands of experiences that are corroborated by doctors, nurses, friends, and family, that is, the reports of what they saw and heard are verified by people who were there and in a position to know.

The seventh post on the first page gives my argument. My first two posts give some background information.

There have been quite a few books written over the years on this subject, and many of these books were based on eyewitness accounts, that is, interviews with people who have had the experiences. One of the first books on the subject was written by Dr. Raymond Moody called Life after Life where he interviewed people who have had the experience. That people have had the experience most people don't doubt, mostly people try to explain the cause of the experience on hallucinations or some other causal factor. However, hallucinations tend to be person relative, that is, if people by the thousands or millions are seeing the same things that's not a hallucination. How does one explain the video example in my earlier post by saying that is a hallucination?

Address the argument in my post. The argument stands on it's own. Don't tell me it's not a good argument. I'm quite familiar with good arguments. The argument is inductive based on testimonial evidence.

It's quite true that you need extraordinary evidence. That's why there is so much evidence presented. I don't know of many stronger testimonial arguments than this.

That's a good argument Jeremiah. I have to say if someone tells me something is BS I surely conclude they are right. Man you're good.

I have given an argument. You have not given a counter-argument. The argument is clearly presented. Tell me why the testimonial evidence should not be accepted. You seem to think that scientific evidence is the only evidence needed to say that we know.

The argument said that testimonial evidence can be unreliable, but that it can also be strong based on certain criteria. The argument showed how the testimonial evidence in this argument is strong. So based on the strength of that criteria one could reasonably conclude that consciousness does survive bodily death.

And yes, that is the way testimonial evidence works. So if hundreds and thousands of people are making consistent claims about their experiences you require more evidence? You require more because no experience that seems to run counter to your beliefs would satisfy you.

I have found no credible argument against these experiences. I've read the counter-arguments, namely, that they are hallucinations, illusions, drugs, endorphins, residual brain activity, but none of these explanations explain NDEs.

What is real? Unfortunately one cannot give you an answer that will probably satisfy you. You have to go through the process of working it out for yourself. There is no definition of real that will encapsulate every possible use of this word. The meaning of this word is in how it's used within a language. I'm not saying you don't have private experiences, but that the use of the word real is something that takes place in a community - a community of language users. It's not you who decides how the word is used, so in that sense it's not you who decides what's real.

One can correctly say that one's experiences are real, but there are many uses of the word real, and because it seems so vague, it may seem like one doesn't have a grasp of reality. Maybe you're just trying to be precise where there is no precision. Many words are like this, that's just the way language is.

It's interesting to me that those who don't believe that there is evidence that consciousness, for example, can survive the body, will not allow any experience count as evidence. Even if there are literally millions of consistent reports of people having experienced out-of-body experiences that can be objectively verified. I'm not talking about laboratory verification, but sensory experiences verified through testimonial evidence. I find that most of the arguments against this testimony to be fallacious (self-sealing). Why? Because even if the evidence is largely consistent, taken from a wide variety of subjects, can be objectively verified, it's still rejected out-of-hand. Unless one rejects testimonial evidence as a valid way of knowing, how can one reject the testimonial evidence as evidence for dualism? There is plenty of evidence of the dualistic nature of humans. People reject the evidence simply because it doesn't fit their narrative. I'm not saying they do it consciously, but it doesn't fit their world view.

It was suggested in one of the posts that science is somehow the arbiter in this dispute, i.e., the implication seems to be that if science can't know it, then it can't be known. Science is only one way of having knowledge. Surely I know I'm sitting at my desk without having science intervene and tell me that it's a piece of knowledge. Moreover, I can know through linguistic training, testimony, etc., so there are a variety of ways of having knowledge. I don't understand why some seem to limit knowledge in this way. I'm more of a Wittgensteinian when it comes to knowledge, i.e., that there are a variety of uses of the word, and that we justify what we believe in a variety of ways.