But what if reality is monstrous? IMO, it's hard not to love the intelligent more than the unintelligent, the healthy more the sick, the beautiful more than the ugly. One might decide that life isn't fair. A cynical or critical mind could postulate that philosophers often work to cover up this monstrousness. Ideas of cosmic justice or God can be viewed as "shields" against the otherwise blatant injustice and cruelty of reality.

Parenting comes to mind. Parents try to be fair. They try to create a "little world" for their children, where children are rewarded and punished justly, always for their own good in the context of unconditional love. One could theorize that theodicies are ways that adults try to continue this situation past childhood. We dream up immortal souls because it's just too painful to see the little girl die of cancer or the brain-damaged adult float through life as a dependent. — t0m

I agree with some of what you're saying, but what one believes in terms of their world view should hang on the evidence to support the argument. For example, even if there is good evidence to support an immortal soul, people will still want to believe it because it gives them hope. However, if you're just believing something because it sounds good, or it gives you hope, that's not a reason to believe.

For me the materialist world view is almost as bad in some ways as a religious view, both tend to be very dogmatic and self-sealing.

I don't subscribe to complete skepticism, but a healthy skepticism.

There are several issues here that I'm not sure I can address in this one post, but I'll try to be concise and to the point.

I don't think there is any deductive proof that will work, that is, that proves the existence of the soul. I would argue that you don't need a proof to have knowledge.

If one defines greater or lesser in terms of one's ability to do X, then I guess there are greater and lesser souls or persons. I believe that persons have intrinsic worth that goes beyond one's ability, and that one's intrinsic worth demands that we treat people with respect, and that we treat them justly. I don't believe this is dependent upon one's belief in God, or some other lawgiver. I believe one could make an argument in terms of justice or other moral issues based on the nature of human beings, or on the basis of what it means to be a person (person, for me is a much broader definition). Much of what we believe about these moral issues is dependent of course on one's world view.

I don't see how it's monstrous to believe there are persons with greater or lesser souls. Unless one thinks that that gives one the right to treat persons with a lesser soul unjustly. I don't happen to think that justice is a matter of opinion, that is, I see it more objectively. Moreover, I see it this way apart from my belief about an afterlife. Even if one believes that when we die that's the end of our existence, this still doesn't give someone the right to act unjustly.

There is also something more to what I believe, that goes beyond the physical. I don't believe that we can ultimately be harmed if the NDE reports are accurate. And since harm is an essential property of evil or immoral actions, then ultimately there is no evil. There is only what we refer to as evil in terms of this reality. So is there evil? Yes and no, there is evil in terms of how we describe certain acts in this reality, but ultimately there is no evil, because ultimately we cannot be harmed. When I say ultimately, I mean in a higher consciousness or awareness, thus a higher reality. That higher reality is where our identity resides, where all our memories and experiences reside.

There is no doubt that our bodies are harmed, and that we feel pain in this reality, but if when we die this is all mitigated, then ultimately there is no evil. Thus, in a sense, there is no evil in terms of requiring justice. Especially if it's true that we chose to come into this existence knowing what we would experience. This, I believe, would also solve the problem of evil.

Think of this reality as a lower level of consciousness, and a lower level of sensory perceptions. The best analogy is that of a dream. In a dream all of our memories, knowledge, and experiences reside in our waking body. While we are dreaming we may experience dream pain, dream knowledge, and dream experiences, but once we wake up everything is expanded, and much of what we experienced in the dream is mitigated by our higher level of consciousness. It's not that we didn't have the dream experiences, it's that the dream experiences don't have the impact we thought they did. The same is true when one compares this reality with an even higher level of reality or sensory experiences. Much of what we experience here is also mitigated, especially in terms of harm.

I've been studying these accounts for about 12 years, and I've read many of the deathbed visions along with DMT reports. I've also read many other accounts associated with OBEs. Negative reports are only a very small portion of the total reports, but they do happen. Most of the religious reports are dependent upon what someone already believes according to their culture, etc. I don't think any religion captures the essence of these reports. It's my belief based on what I've read and listened to that not only has religion got the afterlife wrong, but also the materialistic world view has it wrong too. Moreover, those who are trying to make these reports into something religious will inevitably fail, because it seems as soon as we do that we get too dogmatic.

I try to keep the conclusions in terms of what I think I know to a minimum, and I try to separate that from speculation. Although, there is a middle ground where it's not totally speculative, that is, there is some evidence, but I don't categorize it as knowledge. It's more of a strong belief based on good evidence, just not strong evidence. The best example I can give is that instead of it being 90% probable it might only be 50-60% probable.

It's my belief based on my studies over the years that dogma is the enemy of truth. Whether it's religious dogma, scientific dogma, atheistic dogma, or political dogma, it doesn't matter when we're trying to accumulate knowledge. I'm talking generally here, that is, there are some things we can be dogmatic or absolutist about, but generally speaking if you have a world view that's too dogmatic, you're going to find yourself on the wrong end of knowledge. On the other hand, you don't want to be so open-minded that you become susceptible to everything that comes down the pike. So healthy skepticism is a good thing, but if you allow dogmatism and ego to dictate what you believe, then your not really concerned with truth.

It's interesting that people who study Jujitsu for many years are people who have to let the ego go to some extent. No matter how good they are, or how much they think they know, they're going to get beat by someone. Many people drop out because they can't handle losing to someone that's ranked a little below them. It's only as people let go of their egos that they're able to progress and continue to learn. I've noticed that many philosophers, and people in general, will hold on to a belief because of ego, myself included, so I put this out there for those of you who are only interested in learning. It's also for those of you who aren't afraid to have your beliefs tested by others. All of us can be beaten, in terms of what we think we know.

This analysis is also important in determining the reality of NDEs.

Characteristics of Near-Death Experiences Memories as Compared to Real and Imagined Events Memories

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3609762/

And another interesting article for those of you who are interested.

https://books.google.com/books?id=110oDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT198&lpg=PT198&dq=statistical+analysis+of+near+death+experiences&source=bl&ots=rGwkDIdGsd&sig=UsTYfGpt08BAXwM6zKKUY5Gh9PY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKtaGWtfXWAhVGQiYKHaAWAhAQ6AEIZDAJ#v=onepage&q=statistical%20analysis%20of%20near%20death%20experiences&f=false

If you have time read the following. It might answer some of your questions.

http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Greyson/Greyson-The%20Journal%20of%20Nervous%20and%20Mental%20Disease_1983-171-369-375.pdf

If you have time the following is also Dr. Greyson talking about consciousness at a conference. It's rather long though. If you want to go straight to his talk about NDEs, it starts at around 28:33.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aWM95RuMqU

I haven't forgotten your last post. I'll get to it. It's a bit hard to follow though.

How would a conclusion in this instance benefit you. Sure there is much evidence to support a theory that consciousness survives the body but there would certainly be many questions which could not be answered which would/should make one hesitate in making any conclusion especially if making a conclusion was not necessary. — Another

For me knowledge is intrinsically good, and in terms of NDEs I think it would be a good thing to expand our knowledge of consciousness. While it's true that there are many questions which we will not be able to answer, that shouldn't deter us from our quest. There will always be questions. In fact, the more I learn the more questions I have.

Even with everything we know about body and mind today without actually crossing the threshold of life and death this is question that could not be answered conclusively. — Another

We don't need to answer questions conclusively to have knowledge. Some of our knowledge is absolute, but most of it, or much of it, is based on what's probably the case, that is, a high degree of probability.

As stupid as it sounds I still ponder these thing continuously but this has never been a fruitful exercise. (I will certainly continue to ponder as well) — Another

It's not stupid, and don't let the view of others diminish your search for knowledge. Thinking outside the box is a good thing, as long as you don't get so far outside the box that you lose sight of the box.

Debating this or trying to convince someone this without more than a blurry picture and idea and with no means of obtaining indisputable evidence is questionable.
Certainly explore and ponder, it would be foolish to ignore what's happening around you but again I don't believe you can possibly find an answer.

I would enjoy little more than you proving me wrong though. — Another

I don't believe that what I presented is a blurry picture. I thinks it's quite clear. However, it took years of studying these NDEs to come to that conclusion. I don't expect, nor do I hope to convince anyone of anything, at least that's what I tell myself (lol). In an idealistic world it's all about the argument, that is, the framework used to present the evidence. Don't confuse the term argument with dispute, it's about how your statements follow from one another. It sure isn't the kind of debating that we see in our public forums, which is for the most part yelling, name calling, etc. However, as you can see in this thread, mostly it's done in a very respectful way. Sometimes we get agitated, but arguments are about reasons for belief, not about personalities or emotions.

And as for an answers, I do believe that I have found some answers, but mostly questions.

I don't think that we'll make much more progress since we're at the stage of saying the other person has not answered previous points. I presented the previous arguments I made as if I had demonstrated them, I believe they're conclusive - but of course I could be wrong. This impasse is unfortunate — fdrake

I thought I addressed most of your argument, but maybe I missed some of your points. I addressed some of it in a general way because I'm not sure if an analysis like the one you propose has ever been done. Also, I don't think that such an analysis is needed to reasonably conclude that these NDEs are veridical. Our main disagreement is over the consistency of the testimonials.

I took some drugs once and had a trip. I saw Mario jump out of the closet in my room. I didn't for one second believe Mario was there. There's definitely the possibility for non-equivalence between the content of the experience and what things in the environment generated it (specifically for me it was the drug, not a hidden Mario in the closet). I take descriptions of NDEs as accurate descriptions of what the people experienced (a truism), but not necessarily in accord with what actually happened. Without actually going through all the papers (an exercise I believe unlikely to provide sufficient evidence that consciousness leaves the body). The filters I described are examples of standard procedures to remove confounding variables to allow for causal claims to be made. Just generating an accurate statement (after filter application) still isn't sufficient to show that NDE experiences peer beyond the veil. — fdrake

I might have second thoughts about your Mario example if millions of people were seeing the same thing. However, because a few people see Mario that sure wouldn't warrant believing that the experience was more than a subjective experience, not in accord with objective reality.

I also addressed the idea that your filters are reasonable, but since there are no studies showing that your filters have done the job of weakening the testimonials, I'm not sure what else I can say. Other than you're correct that such a study should be done.

You seem to be saying, sorry if I'm incorrect, that since these filters are possible defeaters, that I should reject the testimonials.

That’s what I’m trying to get at. What does that statement mean? What religious baggage does reincarnation carry?
.
Is it that, because you’re an Atheist, any subject, statement or word that comes from a religion is thereby ruled-out?
.
If suggestions or proposals have come to us from a millennia-old tradition, does that, for you, discredit them? — Michael Ossipoff

What I mean by religious baggage is all the dogma that people believe based on very little evidence, or based on ancient writings that have very little support. This is my view in general about religion. However, that said, it's my contention that the belief in reincarnation originally came from NDE reports, because there are many reports of past lives in NDEs. It may be the case that all religions started from NDE reports.

By the way, why do you assume I'm an atheist? Maybe I'm an agnostic, or maybe I believe there's a God, but that that God doesn't fit within the framework of any religious dogma.

Just because beliefs come from traditions that are thousands of years old, that in itself doesn't make them untrue, or for that matter it doesn't make them true. I try to go where the evidence leads, even if that evidence goes against one's world view. The goal is knowledge and nothing else.

Finally, you say that continuity of experience is all you need for continuity of the person. But how would you know that you have continuity of experience if you don't remember your experiences?

My two-cents:

Testimonial statements need to satisfy the following criteria:

1. The person must be reliable i.e. s/he must be honest.

2. The testimony must fit in with the existing knowledge framework. I think this is your criteria of consistency.

3. Corroboration is a plus point, especially if varied - men, women, animals, instruments, etc.

Testimonial statements re ''consciousness surviving the body'' fail on 2 and 3 - at least that's'what they say. — TheMadFool

Criteria (1) is very important, however, it's hard to believe that millions of reports with very similar accounts aren't reliable, or that they aren't honest. This is why most critics try to discount them in other ways.

Criteria (2) is important up to a point, that is, we can't let existing knowledge be the final arbiter in terms of what we believe, or we wouldn't move beyond our present knowledge. However, your point is well taken.

Finally, my evaluation of the NDEs doesn't suggest at all that criteria (1) and (2) are points of failure.

My intention is to respond to everyone, but if I miss someone, you'll have to forgive my feeble mind.

I'm not sure one can establish a minimum criteria for what consciousness is, or when consciousness leaves a body, other than one is seeing oneself from a third person perspective - maybe the third person perspective is the minimum requirement. However, if this is all we had it probably wouldn't be convincing, at least to me. I did divide NDEs into three categories, from the very short NDEs (cat 1), and category 2 and 3 being more elaborate, that is, more detailed reports. However, the lines between each category are blurred, because there is overlap in the reports.

Key questions of the first argument: what are the relevant qualities of testimonial data to be included as part of an analysis of whether NDE experiences are veridical? And this is tied to the question: what would evidence for NDEs being veridical look like?

(1) Reducing the effective sample size of testimonials to ones which are relevant for studying whether the accurate statements arose because of the NDE.
(1i) This was done through applying the aforementioned filters on observational data to preclude confounding factors, leaving few testimonials.
(2)If NDEs were in the aggregate veridical, we would expect accurate descriptions during NDEs because of NDEs to be common.
(2)i This is established through the door analogy. If a person is exposed to a door, they will see a door if the door is there because the door is there (if it's there). This would give a high proportion of accurate descriptions in those cases which satisfy the criteria.
(3) We do not observe many cases of NDEs that satisfy the filters.
(4) The rarity of accurate descriptions in testimonials satisfying the filtering criteria are consistent with these phenomena arising out of a highly improbable random mechanism.
(4i) More detail: with the door example, accurate descriptions satisfying the filter are too common to be the product of solely rare chance.
(5) There is not enough relevant data to support that NDEs caused the accurate statements.
(5i) relevance being established by the filtering criterion. — fdrake

Concerning (1) and (1i), it has not been shown, and it's purely speculation that the filters that you propose would have a negative affect on these testimonials. While it's true that these testimonials would either benefit or not from such an analysis, it has not been demonstrated one way or the other.

Concerning (2) and (2i), There have been studies that show that NDEs do give accurate descriptions.
And those that have done the studies break down what's common to NDEs, as I have done, only using percentages. You give the example of the door, but as I've answered in a previous post, the door analogy is not complex enough, it doesn't have the complexity of normal veridical experiences. Moreover, the one thing that stands out in these testimonials is the OBE, which you seem to believe in. If one believes people can have OBEs, then how can one not believe that one can have accurate descriptions of their OBEs? Moreover, how is having an OBE not evidence of consciousness extending beyond the body? Unless your contention is that the OBE is dependent upon the body, but then the question arises, how are the testimonials of an OBE that is dependent on the body, any different from the OBEs people describe when the brain and heart are not functioning? How can you believe the testimonials of the former and not the latter?

Concerning (3), this again is speculation, since a study of this sort has not been done (as far as I know). Thus, one is within his/her epistemic right to conclude that the testimonials are veridically accurate. Unless you know of a study that shows that your filters rule out the accuracy of the testimonials, then your conclusion is based on what might be the case. One can rule out any testimonial based on some possible study that might show that they are not accurate or veridical.

Concerning (4) and (4i), again this is pure speculation, there has been nothing to demonstrate this to be the case. The idea that the accuracy of the testimonials can be reduced to randomness demonstrates a lack of study of the testimonials. I point this out because I believe in an earlier post you did say that you hadn't actually studied NDEs - not just read about them, but actually studied the testimonials.

The door example, I already addressed above and in an earlier post.

Finally, (5) and (5i), again speculation.

I'm not saying it's not possible that these NDEs cannot be explained in other ways, or discounted by a careful statistical analysis. I'm saying that given my own studies, and the studies of others, there is no other explanation or study that has been done to negate these accounts.

For your argument to work you would have to show more evidence to support your conclusion.

Key questions of the second argument: what would the descriptions in NDEs have to look like to be consistent? Can we describe a given person's NDE before it happens with a sequence of non-disjunctive statements? Why would the sequence taking a disjunctive form establish the non-consistency of NDEs?

I think the difference between your Alaska example and the door example, and the differences between each and a particular NDE are illustrative here.

The door example is different from your Alaska example. The door example is a model of a simple veridical perception, the Alaska example's 'parts of the state' are generated by the observed thematics of NDEs, and so can always be made consistent descriptions of NDEs in the aggregate through iterated disjunction. This will not help us predict the content of a particular person's NDE other than saying something like 'it is likely to contain an OBE and have at least one of these thematic sensations within it'.

You have aggregated the general thematics of the testimonials and are now claiming that they are consistent based off of the idea that they obey these general thematics. The door is consistent, people see the door if the door's there. We cannot tell 'if the door is there' - some kind of representational truth- with the general thematics of NDEs, since of course particular NDEs are likely to satisfy some subset of the derived thematic properties of their aggregate! Furthermore, if we could tell this from typical NDE content descriptions, the testimonials which satisfy the filtering criteria are likely to be far more common.

Points of Commonality and Difference — fdrake

The door example is an example of a simple veridical perception, which is why it won't do when compared with more complex NDEs. NDEs are good examples of everyday reports, they are virtually identical with everyday testimonials you might get when reporting on an event. Thus, unless one has good reason to dismiss them, without speculating on what might rule them out, I contend there is enough there to warrant the conclusion my argument makes.

The door example although not as complex as general NDEs does have a correlation to NDEs in the sense that nearly 100% of those who have an NDE report not only being out of the body while the body is still functioning normally, but also being out of the body when the body is virtually shut down.

My contention is that based on the research of others, and based on my own research there is enough consistency in these testimonials, and there is enough specificity within the millions of accounts to warrant the conclusion my argument makes. The same reports are given over and over again, not just a few here and there, but many millions of accounts.

One doesn't have to do a statistical analysis to know the testimonials are consistent. Simply reading them will suffice. Knowledge here is not a matter of statistical analysis, or a matter of what science might or might not say. Anyone who takes the time and effort to read the accounts, and not dismissing them out-of-hand can see there is something extraordinary here.

I don't understand what it would mean to say it's you without continuity of memory. How can there be continuity of experience without remembering your experiences? Memory is an essential ingredient in continuity of the person. You're saying it's not you, but it's you - at the very least it's confusing, and at most it's contradictory.

Yes, culture plays an important role in how people integrate or interpret what they see. For example, Christians may interpret beings they see as an angel or as Jesus, or they may interpret darkness as hell, etc. The same is true of other cultural beliefs, much of what is interpreted is interpreted in terms of what people already believe. This is why it's important to read many accounts of what's happening, and to read what other cultures are reporting. One account that's important is Dr. Eban Alexander's account of his NDE. He was not a spiritual person prior to his NDE, and he is urged after his NDE to write down everything he could remember before reading about other NDEs.

This happens with dreams too, that is, people sometime interpret their dreams based on cultural beliefs. And it's not only dreams, but people in general interpret all kinds of things based on their cultural beliefs, so this is not something unusual. In fact, people will interpret these NDEs based on their metaphysical beliefs, or their materialistic beliefs.

No one has the answer to that question. Even if the evidence is enough to support consciousness surviving the body, we don't know what consciousness is composed of. The most you can say is that it's some kind of energy, but who knows.

Reincarnation is implied by my metaphysics. As I said, you're in this life because there's a life-experience possibility-story about you. Whatever is the reason why this life began, then, if that reason remains at the end of this life, what does that suggest?

Just briefly, I don't believe it's a matter of conscious choice. I believe it happens at a stage death-shutdown at which there's no waking-conscioujsness,and we don't remember our recently ended life, and all that remains are subconscious incinations, subconscious habitual and inherited attributes (referred to in Vedanta as "vasanas".)

For that reason, because of the degree of shutdown at the time of reincarnation, I also don't believe that we ever remember a past life.

But I'm not trying to sound contentious. ...just mentioning a different position on the matter.

Michael Ossipoff — Michael Ossipoff

What I'm trying to do is draw conclusions based on the testimonial evidence. The main thrust of this thread is the conclusion that consciousness survives bodily existence. I have drawn other conclusions based on the testimony, but the strongest conclusion one can infer from the evidence is that consciousness is not a product of our bodies. If the evidence for this is found to be weak, then all of the conclusions that I've made are incorrect, because all of the other evidence is not as nearly as strong.

I don't like using the term reincarnation because it carries a lot of religious baggage. Part of the problem with reincarnation, as I understand it, is that there is no continuity of memory, which is a big problem in terms of saying that it's you that lived in the past. If there is no continuity of memory or experiences, then one can claim to be anyone, but this seems at the very least to be contradictory. My belief based on NDEs, and what people have reported in more in depth NDEs, is that once we leave our bodies our consciousness is expanded, that is, our memories and knowledge returns. It's very similar to waking from a dream state, which is a lower state of consciousness.

Many people have reported that their memories return and that their knowledge expands. Many also report that they chose to have the experience of being human, and that many of the experiences they have in this human reality, are experiences they chose to have before coming here, not everything, but many things. People have reported seeing people getting ready to be born, i.e., waiting for a body to enter. People also report that their essence is that of a much higher being, viz., that the experience of being human is a much lower form of life than what we truly are. The point here is that our memories and knowledge remain intact, just as when you're in a dream your memories and knowledge are diminished, but when you wake up it all returns. Thus the essence of who you are remains intact, and this is an important part of making any sense of living various lives. The dream analogy in a lot of ways provides a lot of similarities to what happens when we leave this life.

There is also plenty of testimonial evidence that our identities remain intact. When we die we return to our true selves, just as we do when we wake from a dream. One of the things that supports this idea is that people claim to see friends and family who have already passed on, and they are essentially the same person. Although they seem to be in a heightened state of awareness.

There are many questions that are answered if indeed one can believe these accounts. One is that we do have free will, but only up to a point. Certain experiences may be determined, but it seems that you do have a certain amount of freedom within the experience. You make choices about how you will respond or act within the experience. In one sense there are certain things that are determined, but in another sense one does have free choice within the experience. It's like being in a river that's moving us in a certain direction, but also having the ability to move left or right within the scope of the movement of the river.

I'm speculating, but I think we are all part of a vast consciousness or mind, i.e., we are individual pieces of the mind with our own individuality. It seems that everything that's taking place is taking place in a mind or minds, and that every possible reality is part of what that mind creates. This might explain why people who have an NDE report feeling connected with everything, as if everything is alive. If what I'm saying is true, then time and distance are in a sense illusory. Moreover, if this is true then we can enter into any reality we like, this is just one reality among many. It's like the brain in a vat, but the difference is we know we are a brain in a vat, we choose what we want to experience, and we can choose to have the experiences with friends. Of course it's much more than just being a brain in a vat because we have experiences with others, and the relationships are of a much higher order than anything we can experience here.

Sorry I got carried away. :-O

The only way there could be testimonial evidence would be if there's reincarnation, and if people who have reincarnated can sometimes remember their past life. And the only way that could be verifiable would be if their previous life had been in this same world, at an earlier historical period. And they'd have to remember details that they couldn't have known if they hadn't lived that previous life.

How could that be verified? After all, it's about the past. Anyone could look up facts about the past, or otherwise research them. Doesn't it seem as if it would be impossible to determine whether someone found out those facts about the past via a past life, or by, in some way, researching it?

No, it seems to me that the only way there could be testimonial evidence of survival of death would be if someone could be reincarnated here, whose past life was in our future. Then s/he could make predictions that s/he couldn't possibly know otherwise. — Michael Ossipoff

What I would say about past lives is the following: There are many reports (thousands) that people remember, while in their NDE, that they and others have lived other lives. Of course it first has to be established that the NDE testimonials are indeed veridical. I believe they are, so I do believe based on the testimony that we can live out other lives by simply re-entering another body. I don't believe in reincarnation in this sense, I don't believe in the doctrine of reincarnation as put forth by religious types.

There are also reports by those who have taken DMT that coincide with the NDE reports of living other lives. I'm not saying that the testimonial evidence for this is as strong as the claim I'm making about consciousness surviving the body, which is only what I'm claiming in this thread. Since almost 100% of those who have an NDE report that their consciousness experience was from a third-person perspective, this is the strongest part of the argument based on testimony; and it's the one I'm inferring.

There does seem to be some evidence that after we live out this life, we can choose other lives, either in this reality or another reality.

There is also evidence that many religious interpretations of NDE accounts are heavily influenced by culture. So I put little stock in people's claims about heaven or hell, the doctrine of reincarnation, or the seeing of religious figures (Jesus, angels, etc.).

Finally, just a quick remark about suicide. When I first started studying NDEs I thought that people who committed suicide had a much more negative NDE, and some do, but after reading many thousands more I have concluded that this isn't the case. Although I'm not sure of the percentages.

Regarding NDE's along the lines of what you're basing your thoughts on...

Could it be the case that those experiences were lucid and vivid like some dreams? I mean, one's physiological sensory perception can work just fine even if the agent is unaware of the fact that it's working. This may help explain how the visions/experience matched up to what was going on in the room, as corroborated by staff and others? — creativesoul

Thanks for the remarks Creative, and yes I do remember you, and the people you mentioned. We go all the way back to Ephilosopher, which was more than 10 years ago. Sometimes I've wondered whether it's worth it to spend time in these forums, but as I look back at the time spent writing and responding to people, it has helped. Even though it can be a pain in the butt. I wish fiveredapples wouldn't get himself kicked out of these forums - I disagree with him about a lot of things, but he definitely knows how to argue. He's just too hard on people.

Can it be lucid dreaming? I've had lucid dreams, but I know the difference between a lucid dream and reality, that is, after having a lucid dream, I'm able to tell the difference. Also there are too many accounts of people without a heartbeat and without any measurable brain activity, so the question arises, how are they able to have lucid dreams under such conditions? And how would one explain how it is that people are reporting the same things, such as, seeing dead relatives and friends, having a life review, etc. I've never heard of lucid dreams matching with other people's lucid dreams. Nor have I heard of consistent reports of lucid dreaming where people report seeing themselves from a third person perspective. Finally, it's also interesting that people report that what their seeing is more real than this reality, as if this is the dream, that is, their sensory perceptions seem to be enhanced. Dreams tend to be a dumbed-down version of reality.

Thanks again Creative.

"So what we can conclude from the testimony is that people who identify as having NDEs and who self report mystical experiences will have at least one of 15 mystical themes in it. Evidence for the disjunctive event isn't evidence for the veridicality of experiencing any disjunct, rather like in the dress example. This leads me to conclude that:

"1) There are general themes within NDEs for those who self report content.
2) There is no evidence that exposure to near death generates a particular NDE.
3) From 2), there is no evidence that the perception of a given NDE type is veridical."

First, my conclusion from reading between 3500 and 4000 accounts is that people who self-report have at least three or more of the things listed on the NDE reports. I'm not sure why you would think that the reports are disjunctive events. The reports are reports of seeing many things, that is, the reports are very much like any testimonial report that one hears from a variety of witnesses of an event or events. It's not like your dress example, that is, that they're seeing either white or blue. They are describing things in chronological order (temporal order), which is very important, and they're describing a variety of things and conversations.

There is an enormous amount of evidence that NDEs generate particular sensory experiences. Again I'm basing this on a close study of the people and the testimony, and I'm basing it on corroborating reports of those who were at the scene. The first thing that almost all of these NDEers report is that of being outside their bodies (OBEs). Each report is going to be different based on what they remember and what's happening around them. Many also report hearing and seeing events just as we would see and hear any normal event. It's also important to point out that each person is having their own NDE, no two of them will be exactly alike. It's like 1000 people going to various places in Alaska and coming back and making a report of what they saw, which is why we need to have many thousands of reports to get 99% reporting W, 30% seeing X, 26% seeing Y, and 2% seeing Z. Thus if we're getting 99% reporting an OBE, that's millions of people reporting the same thing. These reports are exactly what we would expect if 1000 people went to various places in Alaska. They are exactly what we would expect if we went to the places where they claimed to have been, and verified the veracity of their reports by interviewing people who were also there. The main difference is that they're reporting something that doesn't fit a particular world view, or even scientific view. I find that this is what generates the most disdain for the argument.

There is an interesting point that needs to be made, that is, if I didn't believe the people who claimed they went to Alaska, I could make the same claims that people are making about NDEs. They aren't seeing the same things, they hallucinated, they were on drugs, they're lying, their making claims based on faulty memory, or based on what they read somewhere. It's easy to dismiss testimonial evidence, especially given that testimonial evidence is generally weak.

When we first discussed these criteria as a group, I think most of us assumed we were discussing criteria for assessing the credibility of a description of a single event based on the accounts of multiple witnesses. I made comparison to a close play at second witnessed by tens of thousands of people only one of whom was within ten feet of the play, but who could be in a worse position than the umpire team watching video footage from other angles. — Srap Tasmaner

Maybe thinking of it this way might clear some of this up. Let's think of a large building, and within the building are many people doing a variety of things. The building has many different entrance points, and of course each entrance point is going to give you a different view of the events happening within the building. Let's also assume that 1000 people entered the building at different points, and that they did it one at a time. Moreover, as each one came out of the building they reported their sensory experiences. This would give us a large sampling of the events in the building, and we would be able to evaluate the consistency of the reports. In this analogy the building would represent the OBE (out-of-body experience), and the reports would of course be what they saw from the third-person perspective. So it's not exactly like 1000 people all being at an event and reporting what they saw. It's more like a 1000 people witnessing the event one at a time, but it's still the same event reported by the witnesses.

No analogy is probably going to capture the complete picture of what's going on here, but we can come close.

You yourself just mentioned accounts of the resurrection of Jesus as a comparison, which again is a single event multiple people give testimony about. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't want to get into a discussion of the witness accounts of the resurrection, but suffice it to say that most of it is hearsay testimonials, and we only have two or three, maybe, first-hand accounts. I say this to only point out that the testimonial evidence for NDEs is much much larger, and they're all first-hand accounts.

I suppose it could be argued something like this is what we do practically all the time. None of us, as the man said, can see the beetle in another's box, but somehow we almost all come to believe we're almost all having broadly similar experiences.

In sum, the issues are:

One event with multiple witnesses vs. multiple events each with a single witness.
Establishing the existence of the event type by exemplar when the exemplars themselves are controversial or subjective. — Srap Tasmaner

It's not quite like the beetle in the box analogy put forth by Wittgenstein. In the beetle in the box analogy there is no way to confirm what you're looking at. Each of us could be looking at very different things. However, in the NDEs people are reporting things that all of us have seen, that is, if someone reports seeing their dead uncle, then we have pictures of what the dead uncle looks like, or we have others who have seen the uncle. In the beetle in the box example one might say be saying they see X, but there is no way that anyone can see X, or can even relate to what X is. They're pointing to something that has no relation to objective reality at all. People in the NDEs are reporting events that others are confirming. People are claiming to hear conversations of those around their dead body, and these conversations are confirmed by the people who were there. So there is objective verification.

It's multiple witnesses going into the same building at different times. Some of the things are the same, and yet some of the things that are reported are different, in that they happened at different times. Thus, even though I enter the building at a different time, there are still going to be things that are very similar, and still many things that are different. Furthermore, I might even interpret what I see based on my world view, which might account for the different religious interpretations of the experiences.

A large number of the reports are very similar, which is to say that they are not completely subjective. Also one can make the claim that any sensory experience is in some way subjective, but that doesn't discount the experience. The key of course is corroboration.

"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."


I agree with much of this. However, there is a similarity between your door example, and what people are reporting in their NDE. There is one feature that is common to all NDEs, which again is similar to the door example. That feature is the OBE. All of those, or nearly all of those reporting an NDE report from a third person perspective, and it's close to 100%. In fact, if one didn't report this, one would wonder whether the person had an NDE. This would mean that exposure to an NDE would probabilistically entail this specific experience (OBE). In fact this is why my conclusion isn't much broader than it is, namely, because I'm trying to give evidence of consciousness apart from body. The scope of my conclusion is a narrow one given the evidence. Only that people are reporting seeing their bodies and what's happening around them from a place outside their normal sensory experiences.

Let's start here and work our way through the argument.

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.