What follows is a link to a page giving access to 29 essays that were winners in a contest sponsored by the Bigelow Institute -- essays giving the authors' views on the most persuasive evidence that suggests that human consciousness can continue in some form after the death of the human body and brain. The authors of these 29 winning essays are mostly PhDs and MDs. Not all of their perspectives are the same. There was a great deal of prize money involved -- from $500,000 for the winning essay, down to $20,000 for many of them.

I imagine there might be some on the forum who would be interested in looking at these.

https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php

And not one essay shows any evidence.

I tried ...  I really did.  

The winning essay prize was $500,000.

And the winning essay was based on 'scientifically' explaining that a dream proved that a 'person' survives death because in the dream, grandpa visited to explain that although he had just died, he still existed.

I didn't proceed further, but I imagine that if posteriori proof is acceptable (in that it can't be disproven) then people might as well start religions . . .

Yes, but we've finally identified "spritist." He must be the author of "Mediumship as the Best Evidence for the Afterlife."

I hear he's already working on his second contribution: "Beating the Markets through Seances."

NDEs are not evidence?

They certainly are for the person suffering them.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NDEs are not evidence?


LOL! Not even remotely so.

Wait--

You're telling me people who nearly died didn't actually die?

That means that people who nearly fell into a hole in the ground didn't fall into a hole in the ground.

Wow!

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wait--
>
> You're telling me people who nearly died didn't
> actually die?

I said nothing of the sort. The point was the NDE experience, while reported by some, and undoubtedly has some basis in reality, is not in any way, shape, or form proof positive of an afterlife. The human body, including the brain, goes through all sorts of processes towards the end of life. NDEs are one of those and worthy of research. But to hold the notion that we now have solid evidence of an existence after death is completely untenable to the point of being absurd.

That's more an indictment of science, but fair enough. How do you repeat an experiment that involves dying?

*cough* Argumentum ad ignorantiam. *fart* Goddidit.

There actually is a bunch of research done on the phenomenon. It is interesting if one is so inclined to such. If nothing else, a keen look at what our brains do in the final moments worthy of some digging into what makes us, well, us.

Nice Latin. I tried to be a Latino but it didn't work. Maybe it's genetic.

Full disclosure: My DW had an NDE after drowning. Full OBE, hovering over the responders, paradise, the works.

Methinks you protest too much. That’s usually what the "there is no evidence" argument means. Paranormal studies have turned up tons of evidence. You reject that evidence because you don't like it. I would guess that you're not over getting screwed by Mormonism.

You may be right that there is no objective evidence, that it is subjective based on beliefs, but how do you explain Eben Alexander, a NDE skeptic and atheist before his own NDE?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/29/2021 09:04AM by bradley.

Your wife did not drown.

I must be missing something since I think you and I are in complete agreement. I'm all in favor of studying physiological and psychological events of all sorts. But by definition, a Near Death Experience is not a death or post-death experience.

Is that not your view as well?

Thinking back to the Cat's thread about tardigrade resurrection, I would equate near death with actual death. There is also bodily death, which is different so what we have is a dodgy lexicon. I think the problem is addressed by calling it "passing". An NDE is a kind of passing back. Still passing.

"The point was the NDE experience, while reported by some, and undoubtedly has some basis in reality, is not in any way, shape, or form proof positive of an afterlife."

COMMENT: This is a classic equivocation. Bradley made no claim that NDEs were "proof" or "proof positive" of life after death. All he did was question whether such things are "evidence" of survival, which indeed they are! (See my post below)
____________________________________________

"The human body, including the brain, goes through all sorts of processes towards the end of life. NDEs are one of those and worthy of research."

COMMENT: The fact that the body and brain "go through all sorts of processes" at death is a meaningless statement, unless you can carefully and specifically connect the dots between such processes and NDEs as complete, holistic experiences. Some have tried to do just that without legitimate, scientific based success. (See Chris Carter, The Science of Near-Death Experiences (2010)) Moreover, such approaches commit the reductionist fallacy, by assuming that the NDE is just the some of its parts. No psychological experience works that way. Such experiences, including NDEs are unified, holistic, singular experiences, that are not explained by isolating and explaining individual features of such experiences. For example, if you go to a concert and experience a Beethoven symphony, you don't explain that experience by appealing to my visual, auditory, and limbic systems, while noting that they are all common brain and bodily processes. It is the unitary psychological experience that has to be explained, not its parts!
___________________________________

But to hold the notion that we now have solid evidence of an existence after death is completely untenable to the point of being absurd.

COMMENT: Again, you're equivocating "solid evidence" as opposed to just "evidence." Yet, "solid evidence" implies evidence at some level. And whether such evidence is "solid" or not is in the eye of the beholder. Notwithstanding, given the nature of NDEs, all things considered, and setting aside materialist prejudices, it is certainly rational to consider NDEs as "solid evidence" for survival. It is one thing to insist that such evidence is not "solid," but your "absurd" claim simply betrays the fact that (1) you are not familiar with the literature on these matters; or (2) your commitment to a materialist, metaphysical, ideology is preventing you from being open-minded in this regard.

It's not controversial to acknowledge that NDEs happen, nor is it absurd to consider that they may be evidence for something. The problem is the claim that they're evidence supporting the survival of the conscience beyond material death, as if this is a stronger claim than the one that says that NDEs are evidence of altered brain states as the body dies.

As far as evidence goes, NDEs suffer from the problem of undetermination. It's only in the presence of our biases that they inform us what theory we should adopt. Without those biases, NDEs by themselves offer nothing to settle the question.

From my point of view, any evidence needs to be far more uncontraversial than what NDEs offer to move me out of the "I don't know" camp. They don't even come close to "strong evidence" for anything other than that people experience them.

"It's not controversial to acknowledge that NDEs happen, nor is it absurd to consider that they may be evidence for something. The problem is the claim that they're evidence supporting the survival of the conscience beyond material death, as if this is a stronger claim than the one that says that NDEs are evidence of altered brain states as the body dies."

COMMENT: Well, it seems that you have to acknowledge not only that they happen, but also that the very essence of a NDE experience is survival of death; that is precisely what is experienced (whether it turns out to be an illusion or not). As such, it seems to me that it is fair and rational to claim that NDEs are evidence of survival--though not proof, of course--absent hard scientific evidence that they are caused solely by specified brain states. So far, a demonstrable, and even reasonable, scientific alternative has not been achieved beyond gross speculations that are fundamentally based upon a materialist, question-begging, bias, asserting that NDEs are per se impossible. This failure of science might well be due to the unity and complexity of the NDE experience, coupled with the complexities of the brain, and the limitations of modern neuroscience.
_________________________________________

"As far as evidence goes, NDEs suffer from the problem of undetermination. It's only in the presence of our biases that they inform us what theory we should adopt. Without those biases, NDEs by themselves offer nothing to settle the question."

COMMENT: Someone who experiences an NDE and concludes therefrom that there is life after death is not subject to any bias; their belief is a direct inference from their personal experience. A third party evaluating such experiences might well conclude that given the compelling and ubiquitous nature of such experiences, survival can be tentatively assumed. Again, there is no bias there; it is just interpreting the evidence of human experience in the manner it is presented to the mind. Bias emerges when a skeptic announces that notwithstanding such experiences, NDEs are scientifically impossible, and thus invalid. The bias arises through the metaphysical assumption that current science is the final determination of everything that is real; a conclusion that science itself refutes.
_____________________________________

"From my point of view, any evidence needs to be far more uncontraversial than what NDEs offer to move me out of the "I don't know" camp. They don't even come close to "strong evidence" for anything other than that people experience them."

COMMENT: Well, I agree with your tentativeness. Human experiences are complex, and illusions do occur. Moreover, everyone seems to die, and so far, no ghost has ever manifested itself in any objective, public, verifiable way. Nonetheless, I am prepared to call NDEs what they clearly are; evidence of survival. Moreover, we should not lose sight of the fact that there is other evidence of survival based upon human experience that should also be considered before finalizing one's worldview.

>
> COMMENT: Well, it seems that you have to
> acknowledge not only that they happen, but also
> that the very essence of a NDE experience is
> survival of death; that is precisely what is
> experienced (whether it turns out to be an
> illusion or not).

I do not have to acknowledge this, nor do I acknowledge it. This is a claim that goes too far. Given the ambiguity, the difficulty, in determining an exact moment of death, medically, scientifically, or philosophically, it can't be said that death has been survived. The experience is aptly named and the claim is near death survival, not death survival. That you're willing to push this line past what is supportable exposes your biases.


As such, it seems to me that it
> is fair and rational to claim that NDEs are
> evidence of survival--though not proof, of
> course--absent hard scientific evidence that they
> are caused solely by specified brain states. So
> far, a demonstrable, and even reasonable,
> scientific alternative has not been achieved
> beyond gross speculations that are fundamentally
> based upon a materialist, question-begging, bias,
> asserting that NDEs are per se impossible. This
> failure of science might well be due to the unity
> and complexity of the NDE experience, coupled with
> the complexities of the brain, and the limitations
> of modern neuroscience.
>

Much of what you state here also belies your biases. As has already been pointed out by others many times, there is plenty of evidence supporting the probability that NDEs are the result of brain states, but you are intent on denying and mischaracterizing it in favor of your preferred speculative and subjective conclusions. _________________________________________

>
> COMMENT: Someone who experiences an NDE and
> concludes therefrom that there is life after death
> is not subject to any bias; their belief is a
> direct inference from their personal experience.


Personal experience is the very thing that creates bias. Every piece of data ever processed through a human mind has been subjected to bias. Every single time.

> A third party evaluating such experiences might
> well conclude that given the compelling and
> ubiquitous nature of such experiences, survival
> can be tentatively assumed. Again, there is no
> bias there; it is just interpreting the evidence
> of human experience in the manner it is presented
> to the mind.

Again, you're stating that there is no bias, then describing exactly the mechanism by which bias is introduced. Once a piece of data, any piece of data, enters a human mind, any human mind, it's subjected to the biases of that mind. Part of the process of discovery is to reconcile those biases, one human with another, until there is consensus; agreement that the evidence says what we think it says. This requires that the evidence presented be largely without controversy. NDEs, as evidence, don't meet this standard, not even close, notwithstanding your claim that they are "strong evidence".


Bias emerges when a skeptic
> announces that notwithstanding such experiences,
> NDEs are scientifically impossible, and thus
> invalid. The bias arises through the metaphysical
> assumption that current science is the final
> determination of everything that is real; a
> conclusion that science itself refutes.

Again, you've given a misapplication of bias and how it relates to evidence, and another mischaracterization of the reasonable, skeptical viewpoint, which doesn't claim that NDEs are non existent, only that there isn't enough data to justify a conclusion that NDEs and death survival are the same thing.

_____________________________________
>

>
> COMMENT: Well, I agree with your tentativeness.
> Human experiences are complex, and illusions do
> occur. Moreover, everyone seems to die, and so
> far, no ghost has ever manifested itself in any
> objective, public, verifiable way. Nonetheless, I
> am prepared to call NDEs what they clearly are;
> evidence of survival. Moreover, we should not
> lose sight of the fact that there is other
> evidence of survival based upon human experience
> that should also be considered before finalizing
> one's worldview.

Call NDEs what you will, but I don't believe for a second that your conclusions are any less biased than a person who denies that they occur. You've both closed your minds around a conclusion based on data too limited to be conclusive.

To me, the reasonable open mind remains agnostic, given the data available.

NDEs are not evidence?

COMMENT: Your question raises a crucial point; what counts as evidence in science generally and in survival (of death) claims in particular. In philosophy of science, this determination is called "confirmation theory" and it is highly controversial. As philosopher of science, Arthur Fine, noted:

"[T]he well known paradoxes of confirmation . . . certainly warrant some skepticism about the viability of any general notion of "evidential support." That skepticism is reinforced by the wide range of inadequacies of all general programs in confirmation theory: hypotheticaldeductive, Bayesian, and others. Indeed it seems time to acknowledge that the idea of a general, explanatory theory of confirmation has turned out to be a philosophical dead end. The variety of evidential practices seems to have a "situatedness" that the philosophical search for a general theory has obscured. Therefore it is certainly not far-fetched to look at how "evidence" works *in situ,* in an open-minded way, without demanding that its operation in any one place must have a set of explanatorily relevant features in common with its operation absolutely everywhere else."

Notwithstanding the above skepticism about defining principlesl of evidence, a broad view of 'evidence' seems appropriate when considering scientific claims; particularly of the soft sciences, like psychology and sociology. Otherwise, these scientific disciplines would lack scientific foundation and would lose all credibility before they even began. The problem is that such scientific disciplines cannot rely upon the evidential standards of 'physics' because when dealing with human behavior and psychology, 'verification,' 'confirmation,' and 'falsification' are inherently problematic. This applies to survivalist claims--and the paranormal literature generally--where the facts and evidence is largely psychological while relying upon human reports of psychological experiences.

In any event, the basic standard of evidence --if there is one -- that applies across the scientific board is usually characterized in Bayesian terms. This means that E is evidence for H (H/E) just in case E makes H more probable than H would be in the absence of E. One can see right away that this definition involves probabilities, rather than deductive inferences, and is largely an intuitive determination. Notwithstanding, there is little doubt that under this definition NDEs are surely 'evidence' for survival, because they make survival more probable than it would otherwise be in the absence of such facts.

People who deny NDEs the status of evidence for survival do not understand evidence and confirmation theory in science: Often for their own rhetorical convenience, they apply the evidentiary standards of physics to human psychology, allowing them to summarily dismiss NDEs as 'evidence' for survival. Yet, it can be noted that if human reports of psychological experiences are valid evidence for issues in cognitive psychology; including the numerous contexts involved in the mind-brain relationship, certainly such reports are also legitimate evidence when considering survival.

One can make a cool half a million trafficking in bullshit?! I'm in the wrong field.

  
  I wonder how much punctuation counted?

Probably a lot more than it does here, where Nothing counts and Everything counts too... but who's counting? I'm only counting sheep. I just mistaked one for a cloud.

I prefer the term Death Adjacent. Describes the bodies I see walking around brain dead but their mouths are working so nobody thinks to call a mortician or order a gladiola filled wreathe.

I wish I'd saved it but I once read a collection of near death experiences and "dabbling in death experiences", the former being hovering over your own body and then doing a half gainer Louganis style for a grande re-entry, and the latter being those who went to the light and got right up to the velvet rope before the bounce said, "Not so fast buddy!"

All their experiences followed their pre-conceived notions of what the afterlife would be. All of them. The Catholics saw the Catholic version, the Eastern religions saw Easterny stuff, the SCientumacoligists saw the biggest volcano ever, and etc. We all know what the Mormons saw-- a lot of people in green aprons with sun glasses on from the glare of the white on white on white.

The whole earth has a "Build a Heaven" program going just like the popular "Build a Teddy Bear" business.

I really just want it all to be over, or, I hope I actually do get to build my own heaven because I'd be good at it and my little dog would be there.

  

You have not idea how true that is. She has already has my worse half trained to roll over and I'm not making a joke.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We all know what the Mormons saw-- a lot
> of people in green aprons with sun glasses on from
> the glare of the white on white on white.

Good thing I didn't have tea in my mouth at the moment I read this. Best laugh in a long time. Green aprons with sunglasses on. Oh my aching side.

Good title for an exmo memoir!


> I hope I
> actually do get to build my own heaven because I'd
> be good at it and my little dog would be there.

Lovely image, D&D. The little dog would make it perfect.

"Describes the bodies I see walking around brain dead but their mouths are working so nobody thinks to call a mortician or order a gladiola filled wreathe."

At least Covid gives COB personnel an excuse to check temperatures with an IR thermometer.

With their money, I'm surprised they haven't developed an IR Thermometer that can detect the temperature of someone's allegiance to their Royal Highnesses.

I make it a point not to have an opinion on something I know nothing about.

Even dogs, when they are sleeping, can invent a reality that does not actually exist. We all do that, all the time, sleeping and awake.

For any event, the proof of which exists solely in a person's head, the default assumption should be that our brains invented the experience, unless there is outside evidence to the contrary.

Our brains are quite good at inventing experiences. I remember a youthful encounter with Cheryl Tiegs that never happened, no matter how real it seemed at the time. Just sayin'

"Even dogs, when they are sleeping, can invent a reality that does not actually exist. We all do that, all the time, sleeping and awake."

COMMENT: So then, you have access to the mental states of dog's while they are sleeping? Nice trick. How do you do it? In 'reality' you only have access to YOUR own mental states, and the reality YOU invent, unless a person describes their mental state to you. In any event, you most certainly do not know what "we all do all the time."
_______________________________________

"For any event, the proof of which exists solely in a person's head, the default assumption should be that our brains invented the experience, unless there is outside evidence to the contrary."

COMMENT: Yes, the 'proof' of any mental event exists only in a person's head (the person's subjective experience itself.) (That is why you don't have access to other people's or dog's experiences) I am also O.K. with the proposal that the default position should be that our brains had something to do with the experience--unless there is outside evidence to the contrary. However, with a NDE there most certainly *is* such outside evidence to the contrary: Namely, the coherence, lucidity, and content of the experience in the context of an unresponsive, severely damaged and compromised brain and body.
____________________________________

"Our brains are quite good at inventing experiences. I remember a youthful encounter with Cheryl Tiegs that never happened, no matter how real it seemed at the time. Just sayin'"

COMMENT: Two suggestions: (1) Get some help because you are conflating your own experiences with everyone elses, of which you know nothing about; (2) Heed the words of Razortooth, "I make it a point not to have an opinion on something I know nothing about." (Greater words were never spoken on RfM!)

I don’t know what dogs dream, but I am pretty sure they are dreaming something. The muffled barks and muscle twitches look an awful lot like the dog is “chasing” something. I assume some researcher has done an actual brain scan to verify that dogs in that state have brain scans similar to what humans have when they are dreaming.

I have no doubt NDEs happen. I have extreme doubt that they represent an external reality. I think our subconscious invents them. Opinions vary.

Don’t need help, but thanks for your concern.

You are right about the dogs' dreams and about the brain scans. They experience the canine version of what humans do--and in both cases they bear the same relation to reality.

One of Henry's hobbyhorses is that we cannot locate consciousness or any mental function in the structure of the brain. He asserted that many times two or three years ago and had a self-referential body of literature that reinforced that position. I kept providing him with particular forms of dysfunction that result from injuries to previously identified parts of the brain as well as learning disabilities that are correlated with unusual activity patterns in other parts of the brain. But to no avail. Much like King Canute, he wanted to stem the tide of science lest it flood the swamps of uncertainty in which his transcendent mind or soul hides.

I am agnostic as to whether such an independent, immaterial consciousness exists. But fear that free agency may prove illusory should not blind us to the real, and accumulating, body of evidence to that effect. We should be able to acknowledge, for instance, that harm to certain parts of the brain are highly correlated with psychopathy and other forms of "altered" consciousness and morality.

What Henry's doing here is starting with the conclusion that science has no idea how the brain works and then arguing backward that we can't infer that dogs dream simply from the fact that their brains exhibit similar activity patterns to those of dreaming humans. Your sources indicate that he is incorrect. So too, more generally, does the following MIT lecture on neuroanatomy, which locates any number of functions in precise regions within the brain and shows how studies of other mammalian brains illuminate the functionality of human brains.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAkuNXtgrLA&list=PLUl4u3cNGP60IKRN_pFptIBxeiMc0MCJP&index=3

So far Henry's "consciousness" or "free agency" recalls the God of the gaps. It may be that there is a supernatural being that resides in some place science can never discover; it may likewise be that there is some nook of the brain in which a transcendent and free mind thrives. But one's preconceptions on that score should not preclude our accepting the accelerating accumulation of scientific knowledge about how that organ concretely works.

You do not have the background knowledge or reasoning ability to state my views correctly, much less assess them. As such, please stick to your own opinions.

You have stated your opinions on these matters openly and on many occasions. I merely restate them.

For example, we spoke in detail about issues like learning disorders, brain imaging, and neuroscience. In all cases you rejected the notion that science can localize brain function although over time you changed your stance on dyslexia. I can't remember what name you were using when we discussed some of those topics, but examples of you denying the utility of modern scientific methods and studies include these:

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2285381,2286823#msg-2286823

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2315589,2315619#msg-2315619

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2315589,2315849#msg-2315849

Contrast your claims about the limitations of brain imaging in the third clip with the one-to-one map of neurons' relation to portions of the visual field shown explicitly in the MIT clip. Contrast likewise your statements about the lack of clarity regarding the effects of brain injury with Kanwisher's precise explanations of various forms of memory loss and even the ability to perceive motion. It's easy, Henry. She uses pictures and is speaking to undergraduates.

You're free to say whatever you want. But your words speak for themselves--and they are wrong. You've painted yourself into a corner by devising an intellectual system that is impervious--nay, denies the existence of--scientific realities that are utilized in the laboratory and the doctor's office virtually every day.

If you want to engage me in debate, fine. If that includes quoting me, and providing a specific, argumentative, response, fine. But don't ask me to wade through a bunch of prior posts, or read through linked or referenced articles, or assess general scientific discoveries, without making specific points.

As usual, your scientific assessments are wrong at worst, or at best grossly overstated. In this case, your conclusion as to neuroscience's ability to map human cognition "one-on-one" is flat out wrong, and frankly ridiculous. Certainly, some such general mapping has been achieved, particularly in the area of visual perception, which is the easiest system to correlate; and there are certainly correlations between brain pathology and psychology, none of which I have ever doubted, or called into question. But as to more advanced cognitive functions, and memory tracing, neuroscience remains essentially in the dark.

But, again, if you want to make specific points, or provide specific quotes, either as a challenge to my statements, or in support of your own position, fine. We can then have a fun debate. But I am not going to spend hours digging through prior posts, or considering your general, unsupported comments, or watching videos, or reading long essays, to refute your often ill-informed positions.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you want to engage me in debate, fine.

I wasn't engaging with you. I was engaging with [|]. My experience with you has shown that you don't address the points others raise; you just retreat to your echo chamber.


--------------------
> If that
> includes quoting me, and providing a specific,
> argumentative, response, fine. But don't ask me
> to wade through a bunch of prior posts. . .

You denied saying what you have said. I linked to your statements to document your contradictions. If refreshing your memory about those claims is too much bother--or, pointedly, otherwise inconvenient--so be it.


--------------------
, or read
> through linked or referenced articles, or assess
> general scientific discoveries, without making
> specific points.

I did make specific points. It doesn't surprise me that you would rather ignore them since facts have sharp edges and may puncture your hermetically sealed bubble.


------------------
> As usual, your scientific assessments are wrong at
> worst, or at best grossly overstated. In this
> case, your conclusion as to neuroscience's ability
> to map human cognition "one-on-one" is flat out
> wrong, and frankly ridiculous.

Did I say "human cognition?" No, I did not.


------------------
> Certainly, some
> such general mapping has been achieved,
> particularly in the area of visual perception,
> which is the easiest system to correlate; and
> there are certainly correlations between brain
> pathology and psychology, none of which I have
> ever doubted, or called into question.

Utter nonsense. We argued at length about dyslexia and about brain injury and your position was that it is impossible to localize reading or any other functions. Then you started to slide away from that manifestly false argument all the while denying your that anything had changed.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2315589,2316207#msg-2316207


------------------
> But as to
> more advanced cognitive functions, and memory
> tracing, neuroscience remains essentially in the
> dark.

I never mentioned "advanced cognitive functions" or "memory tracing." Those are your straw men, your means of avoiding honest discussion.


------------
> But, again, if you want to make specific points,
> or provide specific quotes, either as a challenge
> to my statements, or in support of your own
> position, fine. We can then have a fun debate.
> But I am not going to spend hours digging through
> prior posts, or considering your general,
> unsupported comments, or watching videos, or
> reading long essays, to refute your often
> ill-informed positions.

This is ironic on several scores. First, you have often asked me to read your litany of not articles but entire books. To assert now that you are too busy to learn from others smacks of the condescension that [|] noted. In addition, you have on numerous occasions asked me for specific sources, which I provided. For instance, here:

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2304518,2305193#msg-2305193

But then you retreated to your bubble, saying you didn't really want sources.

Finally, discussing these matters with you is not "fun." It's tiresome. You have constructed a cozy little intellectual home and, recognizing that truth can be awkward, will not let science intrude. When people present empirically established facts like the one-to-one nature of visual processing (you'd have to watch the video or read an article), the neurological basis of dyslexia or HDHD or autism (you'd have to read Shaywitz or other experts whose names you've never encountered), the impact of injury to specific brain regions on the type and nature of memory impairment (ibid), or the fact that animals dream (see above), you declare those things impossible and retreat to what you perceive as a dream castle but the rest of us recognize as a mere hovel.

What is the point of discussing scientific matters with someone who's convinced himself that the inside of the cave is perfectly cozy and those lights and shadows from outside are mere illusion?

A new record for arrogance and condescension.

You're a poser Henry.

"I don’t know what dogs dream, but I am pretty sure they are dreaming something. The muffled barks and muscle twitches look an awful lot like the dog is “chasing” something. I assume some researcher has done an actual brain scan to verify that dogs in that state have brain scans similar to what humans have when they are dreaming."

COMMENT: It is one thing to infer that dogs dream by their behavior during sleep, it is quite another to conclude that dogs (or humans) generally "invent a reality that does not exist" "all the time." You don't have any basis for such a conclusion. Dogs like humans probably dream in similar ways, but they do not go around "inventing reality."
__________________________________________

"I have no doubt NDEs happen. I have extreme doubt that they represent an external reality. I think our subconscious invents them. Opinions vary."

COMMENT: I agree with you and share your doubts. But "opinions vary" includes contrary, well-informed, and rational opinions by those who have had such experiences, and those who have studied them far more than you or I.

__________________________________________

It occurred to me that I failed to make something clear here:

Dreams do not create an alternative reality. As humans (and presumably it is the same with dogs) we can, and regularly do, differentiate dream states from reality states, and therefore do not confuse dream states with "alternative reality" states. By contrast, and from the reports of NDEs, NDEs are NOT dream states! They *are* (so-to-speak) presented as an alternative (or continuing) reality. Thus, in one sense, although humans *do* dream, more or less, "all the time" they do not create alternative realities all the time. That is why you cannot equate dream states with NDEs.

Incidentally, I always appreciate your comments and opinions as well as your thick skin in putting up with my "snarkyness."

Here it is again: the blatant self-contradiction.

Above you indignantly told us that we "don't have access to other people's or dog's experiences" and hence cannot state that dogs dream. But here you write that humans dream "and presumably it is the same with dogs. . ."

If expressed with sufficient fervor such blatant inconsistency may pass muster in the court room, but elsewhere it's just sad.

" . . . the default assumption should be that our brains invented the experience, unless there is outside evidence to the contrary."

Yes, yes yes.

Consider anything and everything but at the end you gotta have some good solid stuff to disqualify and abandon the default. I'm still waiting and not for Godot.

An afterlife post and I didn't even have to post it????

Welcome to some of the people and the world I associate with (Jeff M, and some of the judges --- Targ, Weis, Utts and Putoff).

I haven't read the essays but as far as I know Jeff is not really an 'experiencer of the afterlife' but of many psychic things. Too bad an 'experiencer' didn't win. I probably could have provided 'experiences' using different psychic areas (Remote viewing, mediumship, dreams, visions, meditation, etc.), Unfortunately, I think they wanted 'credentialed' people. Maybe next time if that comes.

Many of these people are associated with Remote viewing which many pro Rvers claim a part of the RVer does visit the 'target site' which is normally somewhere else in time and space, on Earth. afterlife but can be in outer space. They prove it by communicating with the people there.

Unfortunately, many people with the phd behind their names have studied these phenom but cannot prove much about how any psychic things work ---- they just can collect the statistics that prove that they do work to a degree by at least select individuals.

I enjoyed reading the comments.

This is my simple take on NDEs. I read a number of studies where children saw their friends and family in their NDE experiences. Older adults saw deceased individuals. Nothing magical. It is where people are in their lives as to what they may undergo when the brain begins to shut down.

    How about individuals mocked in the press for being in relationships with famous (and good-looking) individuals who often don't even know their stalker even exists?

    Have you ever had an enemy who wanted to do you harm based on something that, in your view, never happened?


    "Reality" is what you make of it...


    

Near Death Experiences are only one of a number of possible indications of an afterlife discussed in these essays, and yet I have the impression that posts in the forum ofen gravitate to discussing NDEs when afterlife evidence is being considered. From what I've read of the essays so far, not all of the writers consider NDEs particularly good evidence of an afterlife, but of course some do.

    That would be Post Death Experiences . . .

It might help some on RfM to be a bit more open-minded to consider the words of physicist, Nick Herbert:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Herbert_(physicist)

_______________________________________________

"It is not that we possess bad, partial, or flawed theories of the inner life. We have no such theories at all, even bad ones. Instead we possess only vague fantasies, philosophical hunches, and speculative, untestable guesses. Make no mistake: we are in the kindergarten, sandbox stage of consciousness research. We have a long way to go before we can call what we know about the inner life a "science." . . .

"Scientists can say that the phlogiston theory of combustion is wrong because they have a modern theory of heat by which it can be judged and found wanting. However, present-day science is not in a position to judge claims of spirit communication, out-of-body experiences, reincarnation, telepathy, and other unusual styles of awareness systematically since it does not possess a theory of ordinary consciousness, let alone its variations. At this stage of our ignorance, scientists like everyone else must appraise these unusual mental experiences from their own cluster of amateur notions."

"A dualist maintains that mind and matter are essentially different kinds of essences each with its own laws and manner of existence. Some dualists speak of a "soul" that inhabits and enlivens the body, a sentient essence that may even survive the body's death and dissolution. In this materialistic age, dualists are often accused of smuggling outmoded religious beliefs back into science, of introducing superfluous spiritual forces into biology, and of venerating an invisible "ghost in the machine." However, our utter ignorance concerning the real origins of human consciousness marks such criticism more a matter of taste than of logical thinking. At this stage of mind science, dualism is not irrational, merely somewhat unfashionable."

(Nick Herbert, Elemental Mind, p. 21-23)

______________________________________________________

See? Your rebuttal to the cutting-edge science of today is to quote a book published in 1994.

Go back to sleep, Mr. Van Winkle.

Herbert states clearly that there are no "theories of inner life," in other words, no theories of mind and consciousness. This fact has not changed one bit.

If you think otherwise, it should be easy for you to cite some reference to such a theory that goes beyond "vague fantasies, philosophical hunches, and speculative, untestable guesses." His book states specifically what such a theory should include, in case you want to read the book. (pp. 32-38)

Moreover, he is still alive today, so he could update his opinion if he so desired. Of course, he hasn't.

The arrogance with which you adorn your posts makes me suspect that you wouldn't recognize an open mind if the very innards of it were spilled onto your lap.

It seems to me that anyone who doesn't share your biases is pretentiously deemed by you as close minded, or unworthy of expressing an opinion. It's an hypocrisy that's beyond tiresome.

In this thread we have seen it all. Henry has

1) insulted BoJ, [|], and me rather than addressing our assertions;

2) contradicted himself on whether dogs dream in the expectation that no one will notice;

3) transformed my statements into a series of straw men against which he evidently feels more comfortable arguing;

4) asked others to consider his sources while refusing to consider others'; and

5) cited a 1994 book to disprove the science of the intervening 27 years.

All of us make mistakes; all of us occasionally play the fool (except EOD, for obvious reasons). But few manage to do so with Henry's consistency and impervious aplomb.

Even his insults would seem to contradict his own arguments... "Get some help because you are conflating your own experiences with everyone elses, of which you know nothing about."

Yet he expects us to accept other's experiences with NDEs at face value and as "solid evidence" of death survival. How are we to accept those experiences if we ultimately can know nothing about them?

Yes. Both of you, keep complaining about my participation style on RfM, which I have admitted many times needs improvement. I am passionate, opinionated, and often impatient. But don't lose sight of the fact that you are making me the issue instead of addressing the issues stated in my posts about the subject at hand. I have a thick skin about criticisms directed at me, personal or otherwise, and expect the same from others. Otherwise, people do not have to engage with me, or even read my posts. The same goes for the two of you. And I don't engage with people I don't respect however it may seem otherwise.

Finally,

"Yet he expects us to accept other's experiences with NDEs at face value and as "solid evidence" of death survival. How are we to accept those experiences if we ultimately can know nothing about them?"

COMMENT: Of course, that is a good point. We can only 'know' what they report. But never, ever, have I suggested that such experiences should be accepted at face value. In fact, I told BoJ specifically that I shared his doubts.

Let me raise the ante a bit more. If either of you think that RfM would be better off with me gone, just say so, and I will leave forever. As arrogant as it may sound, I assume my voice is needed and helpful given the nature of RfM and my own unique experience and perspective. If I am wrong, just tell me.

  "You're always wrong when you
  disagree with me, but I will
  defend to the death your right
  to do so!"

  --Judic 'the mouth' West

"But don't lose sight of the fact that you are making me the issue instead of addressing the issues stated in my posts about the subject at hand."

Replace "instead of" with "in addition to" and your statement would be more accurate...one being the source of frustration that leads to the other.