Usually the reason we know something is designed in life is because we already know it is designed - it's manufactured and distributed by channels and makers we can go to and meet and we can understand (almost fully) how and why it was made. — Tom Storm

I generally agree, but there are things that we've found that defy this, and yet we know they've been intelligently designed. And we know just by looking at the thing/artifact.

Well, you can dismiss what I'm arguing, that's up to you, I really don't care. Your requirement that ID needs an explanatory model is just silly. If I say that that is a beautifully designed building, do I need some explanatory model or theory to justify such a statement? Of course not, and neither do I need some model to fit my use of ID in this argument. Most people understand the components of ID, which is why most people believe in ID, only committed atheists and materialists deny it.

There is also the question of why reality should be subject to human reason and why we should have the capacity to understand it. — Andrew4Handel

You had me up to this point. I don't understand. You seem to use reason, then you seem to want to dismiss it. Of course reason (logic) isn't the only way to justify a belief, there are other ways, but reason is probably one of the best ways to justify a conclusion.

This is your answer to my question? The first link is a strawman because I wouldn't make that kind of argument. He's arguing against a particular brand of ID, there is some overlap with my argument, but it's not precisely the same.

Since when do I need some court to tell me what follows logically. I really don't care what a particular court says. The argument should logically stand on its own. Why is it that you don't make your own arguments, you seem to always point people to this or that link. Make your argument.

Every argument against intelligent design commits the fallacy of the self-sealing argument. Why? Because they are unable to say what would count as evidence of intelligent design. If you can't do this then your argument is sealed off from counter-evidence, which is exactly what many religious people do.

It's not a matter of trying to make intelligent design fit, it's a matter of taking other possibilities into account and not limiting intelligent design to some preconceived idea. As if intelligent design is only this or that. I agree that usually people are arguing from a religious standpoint, but that's surely not the only perspective on this.

I'll ask you the same question I asked , what would count as evidence of intelligent design in the universe? What things are lacking?

It looks to me as if the universe is more about chaos and entropy than order - black holes being so bountiful and an entire creation on earth predicated on needless suffering in the wilderness, not to mention the cruelties of almost universal predation and the bountiful range of poorly designed features of what we know as corporeal life - innumerable diseases, cancer, MS, Parkinson's, leprosy, etc... — Tom Storm

Is this supposed to be reasons why intelligent design doesn't make sense? Doesn't it depend on the goals of the designer? The goals of a designer may not have anything to with creating something that fits your conception of intelligent design. Maybe the designer/s wanted these things as part of the design, i.e., to create a challenging place to experience.

The way we use the words intelligent design in our language gives us some guidelines as to what we mean by intelligent design. So, there are some family resemblances that are common among things that have been intelligently designed. For example, the precise fitting together of parts, the beauty of the design, parts fitting together to achieve a particular goal, the use of the laws of mechanics, mathematical precision, built in code, these are just some of the things that are part of what we mean by intelligent design. One could add or subtract from this depending on the context, and what we're referring too.

So, what would count as evidence of intelligent design? In other words, what evidence would you require?

I would like to introduce an argument in response to the "Who Designed the Designer" argument. The "Who Designed the Designer" argument raises the question of who or what designed the designer, leading to an infinite regress. However, I believe that this question is invalid, and that the concept of a designer necessarily requires a starting point. — gevgala

If we're asking if there is evidence of intelligent design in the universe, as far as I can tell the question of who designed the designer is not the point. The only question for me is, is there evidence of intelligent design in our universe? The mistake for many who make this argument is that they're usually trying to prove or give strong evidence for their particular religious God. Whether there is evidence of intelligent design may have nothing to do with whether any religious belief is true or false. In other words, one could ask this question without invoking some God or gods. It's quite possible that there might have evolved some sort of super beings in some other universe that have the power to create things we can't even imagine. In fact, this may be quite likely the case given the ions of time that have passed. We couldn't even imagine how advanced beings could get in billions and billions of years. The point I'm making is that the intelligent design argument is not necessarily a religious argument as so many assume. This brings us back to, "Is there evidence of intelligent design in our universe?"

If there is only one mind, your mind, then language is an illusion. Especially if you believe that there can be no private language. If language is an illusion, then there can be no propositions to form an argument. The fact that there is a language, this in itself, would seem to support the conclusion that solipsism is false. So, solipsism seems self-refuting.

What do you mean by proof? Usually in logic we refer to deductive arguments as proofs. However, sometimes people refer to inductive arguments as proofs (using the word proof more loosely), viz., that the evidence is strong enough to believe the conclusion follows. If anything, the preponderance of the evidence is against solipsism. No one has demonstrated logically that solipsism is true.

Yes. At issue is how one derives what one is to do from how things are. In WIttgensteinian terms, direction of fit. — Banno

I agree.

Second, the foundational problems you reference refer to (I assume?) what ought our goals be or what ought we do regardless of our needs and preferences. These problems likely have no objective answers based on the failures of the last 2500 years of study by incredibly bright people to find any. You are advocating potentially condemning people to endless, unresolvable debates which will provide little to no objective help in resolving common moral disputes. — Mark S

The foundational issues I'm speaking of have to do with what it is that makes murder, stealing, lying objectively immoral? I believe one can appeal to objective reality to make the case that these examples are objectively immoral. So, I disagree that they don't have objective answers. Because people disagree, this in itself doesn't mean there hasn't been progress, or that there aren't good theories. It sounds like your idea of failure is due to there not being a consensus. However, it's not about consensus, it's about good arguments, and many or most arguments aren't any good. Moreover, most people don't seem to be that good at reasoning through some of these ideas. They let a particular ideology guide their beliefs.

There's no definition of good that will satisfy every context, and probably not one that will satisfy most contexts. The best way to answer the question is to ask, "How are you using good, in this context?" So, if I say "Joe is a good husband," what does good here mean? It means Joe is faithful, truthful, kind, excellent provider, etc. In this case we can see what good means, i.e., we're talking about specific things. In another culture, or in a different time, it may mean something a bit different. So, how we use the word tells us much about what it means in a particular context or a particular use.

And yes, if you aren't looking at a particular use, then how can you define it? So, maybe you just have to ask the question a bit differently, then your answer will be less fuzzy. There are word definitions that are much more precise, but many definitions aren't precise.

What are you looking for when you ask the question, "What is good?" I assume you'll say, "A definition," but there is no one definition that will satisfy every use of this word. It depends on how it's being used in a particular context (or language-game). It's the same for many of our words, you seem to be looking for some precision where there is none.

I agree. Science is about how things are, ethics is about what to do; these are very different questions. — Banno

One could easily argue that ethics is both about how things are, and how one should then act.

Could this knowledge help resolve disputes about moral norms? — Mark S

I think trying to find a theory that will help resolve moral disputes may be admirable, but it's the wrong place to start. It may be that the best moral theory is the one that many people have a difficult time accepting. It also may be that the theory that most people accept isn't the one that has the best moral foundation. Imagine trying to do science this way. The best arguments should win the day.

You may find similar moral norms in various cultures, but there will still be disputes as to what makes these moral norms right or wrong. Most people already agree on the basics of what's moral or immoral (lying, murder, stealing, etc.). What's disputed are the foundational questions, and you're probably not going to find consistency here. For me, the foundational questions are the real questions.

I'm going to return, hopefully, to On Certainty, but I'm going to create videos for YouTube. This is all contingent on my health holding up, which is problematic. Some of you near my age know what I'm talking about. Anyway, I'll post my videos in here as I make them, but it may be a while before the first one is posted.

Any thoughts?

That's nonsense. I've read various studies on hallucinations, and what I've said is accurate. In fact, anyone who gives hallucinations even a cursory study will see the points of my rebuttal.

This is the 2nd video in my series of videos on NDEs and the argument for an afterlife.

But it would be eye-opening to learn how others perceive and understand the origins of philosophy to be. — Bret Bernhoft

There is only one answer to this question. The origin of any philosophy arises out of some belief or set of beliefs. I take a very broad view of philosophy, i.e., everyone in some sense is a philosopher. If you have a set of beliefs regarding ethics, science, history, mathematics, family life, on and on, then you are a philosopher, not a professional philosopher, but a philosopher nonetheless. Having beliefs about ethics, for e.g., requires, at the very least, some critical analysis (even if it's very basic) about what you believe. And, it is this critical analysis that's at the heart of doing philosophy, or being a philosopher. The only question is, do you do it well, and not many do it well.

I think it may be useful to separate the private from the public: on the one hand, an individual's private experience(s) - "what's happening to us privately" - and on the other hand, our public behaviour, including our public language/concepts about consciousness. I agree that "without the public part there would be no talking about consciousness", but I think it is questionable whether our public language/concepts can ever exhaust/capture every nuance of every person's private experience. — Luke

I think we agree on these points.

Given that consciousness has both public and private aspects, I disagree. There is only no invisible thing associated with our public behaviour, including our talk about consciousness. — Luke

I'm not so sure we disagree here. There are private experiences going on all the time, but in order to talk about these private experiences there has to be the public component. I'm referring to the use of the word soul. The religious idea that there is some private thing that represents the soul, i.e., that gives meaning to the concept, is problematic. The use of the word apart from the religious use, is associated with that which animates the body, or the actions of the body. There are obviously unseen things going on.

I didn't say that it was.

Agnosticism is saying that the person doesn't know if the concept God has an instance in reality. They're not sure if there is a fact of the matter, or state-of-affairs that attaches itself to the concept. So, there is a belief about the concept, but a lack of belief as to whether the concept has an instance in reality, to say it in a slightly different way.

mean since scientific observations are publicly available whereas consciousness is not publicly observable — Janus

It seems to me that if consciousness wasn't publicly observable, then what in the world would it mean to say that someone is conscious? You seem to imply that consciousness is only that which I alone can access. It would have to be at the very least both private and public. The public part being that which allows us to access the concepts and ideas associated with what's happening to us privately. Without the public part there would be no talking about consciousness, period. Even the idea of what it's like to experience the color red, or to experience the bitterness of dark chocolate, is both private and public. It's the public part of consciousness that allows us to say that rocks aren't conscious.

If you mean there is no scientific avenue of investigation into these private experiences, that too, seems false to me. We investigate these private experiences all the time in science. To investigate the person (their private experiences) is to investigate consciousness. We can easily collect data on such an investigation, and have collected data.

There is no invisible thing associated with consciousness. There is no soul, as some envision, that is the essence of consciousness. There are only the outward signs associated with being you or me, and that is what is meant by consciousness, as I see it. Even in my investigation into NDEs, it's still the same thing, i.e., you can ask the same questions, and the answers would still be the same.

I came back because I did my video over for a third time. Third time is a charm they say. So, since I'm here I'll give a short response to your reply.

I agree, memories take time to form, but you're not going to tell me that as we're being revived from, say, 10, 20, 30 minutes and longer (some shorter times also), and in some cases with no brain activity, that we're having vivid sensory experiences (seeing and hearing) and vivid memories. What you're doing is speculating, there's no evidence that you can get these kinds of experiences after this length of time. Is it possible? Sure, it's possible, but because something is possible that gives you no reason to believe it.

Also, the memories and the narratives of these people are just too consistent. And if you compare NDE memories with everyday memories they're just as vivid, probably more vivid, than our everyday memories. I don't see that it's likely that a brain that is shutting down, or a brain that is showing no signs of life is going to produce such memories. I also don't see that's it's likely that a brain that's being revived is going to go several minutes back in time, even longer, and form vivid memories.

It's not so much that people think it's been several minutes when it's only been seconds, it's that when you compare the times of when conversations took place, and when the brain was inactive, there should have been no way the brain formed such vivid memories of conversations and other activities. The times don't match your example.

Thanks for the response.

I've just read the full article. Perhaps you can clear up what seems, for me, the major stumbling block. Brain cells take hours to die from anoxia. Since NDEs are only recorded in those who've been resuscitated, by definition, their brain cells still had some capacity, they were dead according to cardiopulmonary measures, but there's no reason to assume their neurological system had no function. — Isaac

I'm only going to be coming to this thread from time-to-time to add a few comments, then I'm leaving to work on posts to Youtube.

You're asking some good questions, and they deserve a response. It's true that brain cells take hours, and even days to die, so why would we not assume that due to that neurological life that this might account for what's happening in NDEs? I'm assuming that's what your question amounts to. First, we're talking about barely measurable activity, but that's far from the kind of activity needed to have very lucid experiences and memories. You're not suggesting that when the brain essentially shuts down, or is shutting down, that we get the same kind of sensory experiences that we get when the brain is fully functional, are you? The evidence doesn't suggest this at all. Moreover, many of the reports are claiming that the experiences are more lucid, not less lucid than veridical experiences. How would barely functional brain cells account for such activity. There have also been reports where the blood has been completely drained from the brain (trying to get to an aneurysm), and yet they seem to have full blown sensory experiences (Pam's account from Atlanta that happened in the early 90's).

Also, there are other sensory experiences that NDErs are claiming to have that's more in line with an OBE. For example, hearing and seeing what's going on in other parts of the hospital, and reporting on conversations of loved ones miles away. These accounts would suggest that their report of being out-of-the body, is, at the very least plausible. And, when this is put together with all of the reporting as a whole, the evidence seems pretty strong.

True, but death/coma is, in these cases, scientifically measured. If we relieve ourselves of the truth of such an assessment, then it's just as easy to say the survivors weren't dead (or near dead). In other words, nothing remotely unusual is happening here at all absent of a scientific expectation of mental activity in anoxic conditions.

All the reports seem to show (I haven't read a lot) is some people report weird experiences in traumatic circumstances. It only becomes noteworthy if we learn these traumatic experiences were all 'near death'. But we only know they were 'near death' using a scientific investigation of their biology.

It seems a little cherry-picking to accept a scientific definition of 'near death' to categorise these events, but then reject it when categorising what counts as neurological activity. — Isaac

Much of this is answered in the literature. We don't need science to tell us that someone is clinically dead if they've been under freezing water for 30 minutes or longer. So, there are many situations where there is no scientific equipment around to measure brain, heart, or breathing activity, and yet we know that they are dead. Now if you don't want to say they are clinically dead, that's fine, but you can't tell me that there's evidence that we experience normal veridical experiences in such a state. In some ways the definition of death is moot, because, as you say, these experiences also happen when people aren't considered dead.

I don't know how you can say there's nothing unusual happening even in these states. People are reporting some very unusual things. They're describing events such as seeing deceased loved ones, having life reviews, traveling through tunnels, being told it's not their time, etc. So, how can you say there is "...nothing unusual happening?" Almost everyone agrees that something unusual is happening.

This doesn't answer everything. I just don't have the time to write a 20 page paper in response to everything, but they are good questions. This will be my last post for a while. Thanks for responding.

My own study isn't dependent on what a group of scientists say about this or that, although obviously it helps. My study is more of an epistemological study, and what we can know apart from any scientific investigation. It seems clear that we can know many things apart from what science tells us, just using basic logic, testimonial evidence, and common sensory experience. The notion that we always have to appeal to some scientific investigation to tell us what's true or false, is false on its face. Furthermore, it diminishes other ways of acquiring knowledge.

True, but if you want the complete article you're going to have to pay a minimum of $15. It's at the following link:

https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/nyas.14740

"Researchers publish consensus statement for the study of recalled experiences surrounding death"

"A multidisciplinary team of national and international leaders, led by Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, director of the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Research Program at NYU Langone, have published "Guidelines and standards for the study of death and recalled experiences of death," a multidisciplinary consensus statement and proposed future directions in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

This study, which examined the accumulated scientific evidence to date, represents the first-ever peer-reviewed consensus statement for the scientific study of recalled experiences surrounding death.

The researchers on the study represent many medical disciplines, including the neurosciences, critical care, psychiatry, psychology, social sciences, and humanities, and represent many of the world's most respected academic institutions including Harvard University, Baylor University, the University of California, Riverside, the University of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, the Medical College of Wisconsin, the University Hospital Southampton, and King's College, London."


https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220413/Researchers-publish-consensus-statement-for-the-study-of-recalled-experiences-surrounding-death.aspx

Come on, that's not an ad hominem. Fallacies are related to arguments, if the argument uses a personal attack, say, in one of its premises, then it's an ad hominem. If someone says you're an idiot, as an opinion, it's not a fallacy, it's certainly not conducive to a good response, and doesn't help with trying to get to the truth, but it's not fallacious, again, unless it's part of an argument.

That's correct, when there is no measurable brain activity, the brain is not capable of forming new memories. So, the conclusion is that either the memory was formed after their revival, or there is something else going on, viz., they're actually having an out-of-body experience. Now the question is, why would we conclude that they're actually having an OBE? Simple, if the time of the supposed NDE memories are correlated with particular conversations and actions of those around the body when the brain is showing no activity, then the memories are not formed after the patients revival. We don't form memories of things we haven't experienced. If there was a conversation X, that happened at T1, and T1 is exactly when the brain was not functioning, then there is no good reason that we know of to suppose that the memory happened after the revival, how does that even make sense? This is why NDEs or OBEs are so puzzling. Even if we speculate that maybe the brain is having activity that we aren't able to measure, it's just a guess, there's no reason to believe this. Unless there is some other reasonable explanation of how this could happen, it would seem to follow that the memories were formed while in the OBE state and when there was no brain activity. There are just too many confirmed reports of this happening to write them off as something other than what they are, viz., OBEs.

This is the 3rd recording of this video in an attempt to make it better. I recorded it on 1/11/2023, so the first two were obviously deleted.

I deleted the video because I didn't think it was good enough. I will add the video again when I redo it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Luck.

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

It looks like the problem was my browser.

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the way, welcome back.

Wow, you must have studied NDEs for what, 5 minutes. This is just false, and blatantly so. If it's true that NDEs are veridical (as per my thread- https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body), then they give hope to millions of people who have lost loved ones. NDEs also give hope to those who fear death, who are dying, and who are suffering. The one thing that comes across in most NDEs is the unconditional love that supports us, and how connected we are to one another and the universe at large. This isn't the unconditional love that Christians believe in, where Gods says he loves you, but if you don't believe in me you're going to hell. It's much richer than any religious dogma, and points to where our home truly is. Moreover, it sheds light on consciousness, and the different levels of consciousness. It also sheds light on why so many people believe there is much more to our lives than this short human experience. These are just some of the benefits of learning or studying about NDEs, there is much much more.

Still no argument, only statements that reflect your feelings and attitudes. Poor substitution for logic. You're blinded by your metaphysical bias and dogmatism, but I digress.

Come back from irreverdible brain death with corroborable memories of an "afterlife". That would be proof. Anecdotes – eyewitness testimonies – are notoriously unreliable (as inmates in asylums attest to daily). "NDE" isn't death, it's a cognitive illusion (e.g. an altered / suboptimal brain-state) like e.g. the placebo effect. — 180 Proof

Well, by definition you can't come back from irreversible brain death. So, you're asking the impossible. Mostly we use anecdote to refer to stories that tend to be unreliable or just hearsay. These stories are not anecdotes in that sense. I hear people use this as an argument, but it shows their bias because these stories, the one's that have been corroborated, are by definition not anecdotal. They're firsthand accounts, which have been verified by other witnesses of the events. In other words, the NDErs are describing events around their bodies from a third person perspective, like any other observer. In many cases there's no brain activity, no heart beat, no breathing, eyes are dilated and fixed, etc; and yet, they're able to give an accurate account (including conversations and other descriptions of the people who are there) of what's happening. This is what good testimonial amounts to. Also, if you have hundreds of thousands of accounts (more like 10's of millions) like this, it's not weak testimonial evidence, it's very strong testimonial evidence.

I agree, testimonial evidence is notoriously weak, but it can be very strong, and this can be demonstrated using the criteria for a good inductive argument, using simple logic.

Your pronouncement that "NDEs...[are] a cognitive illusion" is just an opinion that's not supported by the data, and it's not an argument. You're not giving a cogent or sound argument, period, you're speculating; and speculating is fine, I enjoy doing it, but it's not what I would expect from someone putting forth a reasoned argument against my position. The idea that it's some placebo effect is just silly.

Yes, this exactly. If mystical/religious/dualist/etc interpretation of these experiences were correct, this is something we would expect to see. The fact that we do not see it happen is itself probably the single strongest argument/evidence that these experiences are not veridical. — busycuttingcrap

You disregard the testimonial evidence given in my argument (in my thread), and ask for evidence, "coming back from irreversible brain death" as proof, as per 180 Proof. You expect me or anyone who has studied the data to take this seriously. I'm always complaining to Christians about their arguments, but these statements are worse.