[kasparovitch]

Biology and physics suggest no plausible means by which any coherent activity of an individual can be maintained after irreversible brain death.

After irreversible brain death, there are no NDE.

Biolgy and Physics are outside the realm of any experience after death, if there is any. Science did not prove so far that Dualism is wrong neither will prove it.

There are many reports by people who are honest. Many of them report the end of the NDE, like returning to the body or having to decide to come or not before that. This isn't coherent with seizures, drugs, hypoxia, or whatever else. The problem is proving that.

OBE are very significant in that they can be subject to trial. As I told before, Sam Parnia is conducting a multicenter double-blind trial on the subject.

If someday some person pronounced dead fulfills the protocol, that will not be explainable by any physical or biological process.

[Alan McDougall]

Biology and physics suggest no plausible means by which any coherent activity of an individual can be maintained after irreversible brain death.

After irreversible brain death, there are no NDE.

Biolgy and Physics are outside the realm of any experience after death, if there is any. Science did not prove so far that Dualism is wrong neither will prove it.

There are many reports by people who are honest. Many of them report the end of the NDE, like returning to the body or having to decide to come or not before that. This isn't coherent with seizures, drugs, hypoxia, or whatever else. The problem is proving that.

OBE are very significant in that they can be subject to trial. As I told before, Sam Parnia is conducting a multicenter double-blind trial on the subject.

If someday some person pronounced dead fulfills the protocol, that will not be explainable by any physical or biological process.

Please look at this testimony of a Romanian Man who was dead it is profound

[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey]

NDE is not a question of honesty. It a question of people fooling themselves. I believe they had experiences, but not ones that actually happened in reality.

Also, testimony is not evidence.

[Alan McDougall]

NDE is not a question of honesty. It a question of people fooling themselves. I believe they had experiences, but not ones that actually happened in reality.

Also, testimony is not evidence.

You can believe what you like , but the experiences are real glimpses into what come after death. What you are saying is like as a hypothetical answering a person or doubting him/her when he informs you he has just come back from the city of Timbucktoo, with you replying 'come of there is no such place" when in fact it is a real city in a small  African country by the name of Mali?

What you believe or what I believe is redundant to the actual truth, simply because Truth is Truth regardless of what our tiny finite minds think about

Alani

[kasparovitch]

NDE is not a question of honesty. It a question of people fooling themselves. I believe they had experiences, but not ones that actually happened in reality.

Also, testimony is not evidence.

That's exactly what I said. Testimony is not evidence, although most people are honest almost for sure. Moreover, I said that OBE can be subject to evidence and if proved, there is no empirical justification for it.

Now, more philosophically, people who experience NDE are as honest as people who experience seizures, drug effects and so on and later report something similar to NDE. However, the reports of both groups are different in that NDE people often tell about a return before the end of the NDE (some feel a force that pulls them back or are even asked if they want to return before). Please tell me if I'm wrong.

[dlorde]

If all we have is this tiny infinitesimal moment, this quantum 'speck of time' compared to eternity, then the creator or evolution is a great cheat.

Evolution is just a process. The idea of it being 'cheat' is just a subjective judgement you make.

Dreams are different from an OBE in that a person very often wakes up after beautiful one struggling to remember it only moments later, dreams can usually only be fully remembered for a matter of minutes.

Unlike dreams a near- death events imprints itself as a vivid often very beautiful consistent memory, as was my case back in the day that never changers over time!

Perhaps you've never had a lucid dream - where you know you are dreaming, and - sometimes - can even control the dream. Lucid dreams can be hyper-vivid, as you say OBEs are. I can still remember a few lucid dreams I had over forty years ago.

[dlorde]

After irreversible brain death, there are no NDE.

Exactly; and near-death isn't death. NDEs happen when the brain malfunctions.

Biolgy and Physics are outside the realm of any experience after death, if there is any. Science did not prove so far that Dualism is wrong neither will prove it.

It's not possible to prove that kind of negative any more than we can prove the absence of Russell's Teapot. The burden of proof lies with those who claim experience after death. However, it's clear that if quantum field theory is a broadly correct model of how the world behaves, the only relevant entities are protons, neutrons, and electrons; and the only relevant forces are gravity and electromagnetism; these entities cannot support complex processes like consciousness outside a complex material substrate such as the brain. Thermodynamics also tells us that without an energy source such processes can't persist, and neuroscience tells us beyond reasonable doubt that consciousness is a process involving interacting brain cells. These are three strong arguments against consciousness independent of a living brain before we get to the absence of any plausible model or evidence in favour.

If you want to hear how quantum field theory rules out such ideas, have a listen to this entertaining explanation by Sean Carroll of the significance of the Higgs boson (the relevant part starts at 33 mins, but the whole thing is worth watching). His main point is that, while we don't know all the details, we now know the basic rules by which human-scale matter and energy behave, and, like the basic rules of a chess game, we don't have to be expert players to know that if someone suggests moves that, for example, require a rook to move diagonally, they can't be right.   

There are many reports by people who are honest. Many of them report the end of the NDE, like returning to the body or having to decide to come or not before that. This isn't coherent with seizures, drugs, hypoxia, or whatever else.

Nobody doubts that people are honestly reporting their experiences, but it's the interpretation that is doubted. All the features you describe have been reported in induced NDEs and OBEs. Also, apart from some basic features (tunnels, white lights, etc.) that are clearly physiological, the details reported have features specific to the individual's culture and beliefs, which would not be expected if they were experiencing some common objective reality.

OBE are very significant in that they can be subject to trial. As I told before, Sam Parnia is conducting a multicenter double-blind trial on the subject.

I've followed the AWARE study since its inception, and it hasn't fulfilled the promise originally claimed. Reports were promised, then deferred and delayed, and when they finally released their results, several years late, there was nothing of particular interest (one instance of unexpected consciousness). I'm not holding my breath for anything more.

If someday some person pronounced dead fulfills the protocol, that will not be explainable by any physical or biological process.

That's a big IF, full of wishful thinking.

[puppypower]

Another way to approach this question, is to make use of some theories in physics, instead of biology. For example, there are theories of alternative and/or parallel universes and extra dimensions. 

Say the brain, via consciousness, was able to generate a bridge to a parallel universe where it adds content. This is sort of what some religions have taught for centuries. The spiritual realms like heaven and hell, are not places one can go with our physical body, any more than an astronaut can beam into another dimension or parallel universe.  One would need to remove the material constraints, that limits one to this dimension; body, before they can D-jump to the new place. There is no proof of this, however, physics does provide theatrical framework from which the possibility might arise.

If you look at the eternal realms of heaven and hell, by tradition, their clocks are moving much slower compared inertial references. One lives for an eternity instead of 90 years. If we assume a physics explanation, the difference in time would be connected to relativity and time dilation.

For that much time dilation, the other realms would need to be in references very close to the speed of light, or even at the speed of light, where matter cannot go, according to special relativity. This is consistent with the traditions that the spiritual realms are not material but energy based. If the brain could generate an interface to a realm near the speed of light, any memory deposited there would be time dilated, and last forever, relative to earth reference.

If physics and engineering could build a device that can interface a parallel universe, where it deposits a self digestion program, which erases itself, and then go there a second time, a week later to retrieve the program, to find it is still undigested, science would be one  step closer.

[Alan McDougall]

Most of you in this thread take the position of being some sort of authority on the subject, which you are all  decidedly not.

I am as close to an expert or a person who is knowledgeable on the subject!

Because unlike you all, I have actually have had a profound near death experience and know the reality of it ?

Alan

[kasparovitch]

Most of you in this thread take the position of being some sort of authority on the subject, which you are all  decidedly not.

I am as close to an expert or a person who is knowledgeable on the subject!

Because unlike you all, I have actually have had a profound near death experience and know the reality of it ?

Alan

Can you describe your NDE?

[IAMREALITY]

No, unfortunately no consciousness exists after death at all.  Consciousness is a mechanism of our minds, our brains, our neurons.  After death we no longer have a connection to these things.  The mind is a very powerful thing and is wondrous in its ability to manipulate perception.  That's why some believe so strongly in their near death experiences, because their minds were able to convince them with such fervor that what they were experiencing was real.  But it was really akin to someone taking some really strong acid.  It's just all perception.

Unfortunately when we die we die, and our brains, our minds, our subconscious and conscious all die with us.  If consciousness was its own entity, there would be zero need to see brain activity when we think.  There would be zero reason for a brain scan to pick up activity when we think and perceive.  If consciousness were separate, it would be separate.  But it's not.  In fact it's tied to our bodies in every way imaginable and test after test after test shows this.  If consciousness were separate, why would it turn off when we sleep?  Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of our conscious existence is emotional.  And emotions are directly tied to chemicals flowing through our veins.  If consciousness were separate, how would medications so easily impact it?  How could drugs so easily manipulate it?  How could being ill so easily deaden it?  How could brain injury eradicate it?  Everything about our consciousness is tied to our physical form, to our bodies reactions to different stimuli.  Nothing about our consciousness is independent.  So how when we die could it suddenly be?

No, there is no consciousness when we die.  There is zero evidence such a thing is possible and mountains upon mountains of evidence to show simply why it's not.  With all we know about physics, quantum physics, the nature of the universe and all things, what is there possibly that exists even theoretically that would allow a stream of consciousness to occur without neurons or some neural structure?  What would the mechanism be?  What would hold the information and perceive the information?  Where would this energy be stored?  How would it be accessed?  Are we to suspend all belief in physics, the universe, the nature of it, all that we know about it, and suspend belief in all that is real, to put forward a concept that when we die all that we were as a person is somehow magically transformed into some invisible, not made of particles, completely undetectable, yet sentient force that still remembers who we were, without the need for amino acid structures that hold our memories to begin with?  Nah... such things are fairytales and nice things to think about for sure.  Of course we all would like to believe there's more.  But c'mon now, real is real.  When we die we die.  So live each day with a purpose and the knowledge that you only get whatever days that you get here.  Make the most of them.  Cause ya only live once...

[Alan McDougall]

A monster post by someone who knows nothing about near death experiences, it is just his view not "a statement of fact like he suggests"

[IAMREALITY]

A monster post by someone who knows nothing about near death experiences, it is just his view not "a statement of fact like he suggests"

On what basis can you make the statement that I know nothing about near death experiences, when you have no idea who I am?  If you have zero knowledge about me, then saying such things can only be from a standpoint of ignorance (i.e. ignorance = not having the information necessary to form an accurate opinion).

As far as my view goes, like I said; mountains upon mountains upon mountains of evidence towards my side of the argument, and in fact everything we know, everything we've learned about the universe, about physics, about all of it, gives zero credibility whatsoever to the concept that our consciousness somehow lives on.  Literally everything we know tells us otherwise.  Mountains and mountains of evidence on my side of the argument, and literally zero... zero... big fat zero amount of evidence lending credibility towards the other side.  So yeah, I'm pretty comfortable where my opinion lies.

[kasparovitch]

A monster post by someone who knows nothing about near death experiences, it is just his view not "a statement of fact like he suggests"

Forget about other opinions as there will always be people thinking in different ways.

Can you describe your NDE?

[kasparovitch]

This world is a physical one and thus you'll find there nothing more than physical things.

That proves nothing beyond physical reality.

After dying, people disappear from this world and this is widely known, even before scientific foundation, perhaps even by some animals at least.

Using the Teapot by Russell, claiming there's nothing more than physical things need evidence, otherwise it's a teapot orbiting somewhere.

Antonio Damasio, who I praise so much and hope will write some more books, claims consciousness is fully explainable by firing neurons by studying emotions and neurological patients, but I disagree.

I'm constructing a mental experiment, something like the Chinese room by Searle, that shows that by demonstrating that the loss of brain tissue implies loss of mental functions proves as much against Dualism as demonstrating that by cutting a nerve implies loss of muscular contraction.

[dlorde]

I'm constructing a mental experiment, something like the Chinese room by Searle, that shows that by demonstrating that the loss of brain tissue implies loss of mental functions proves as much against Dualism as demonstrating that by cutting a nerve implies loss of muscular contraction.

Good luck with that. I hope you can do a better job than Searle.

Post it up when it's ready.

[IAMREALITY]

This world is a physical one and thus you'll find there nothing more than physical things.

That proves nothing beyond physical reality.

After dying, people disappear from this world and this is widely known, even before scientific foundation, perhaps even by some animals at least.

Using the Teapot by Russell, claiming there's nothing more than physical things need evidence, otherwise it's a teapot orbiting somewhere.

Antonio Damasio, who I praise so much and hope will write some more books, claims consciousness is fully explainable by firing neurons by studying emotions and neurological patients, but I disagree.

I'm constructing a mental experiment, something like the Chinese room by Searle, that shows that by demonstrating that the loss of brain tissue implies loss of mental functions proves as much against Dualism as demonstrating that by cutting a nerve implies loss of muscular contraction.

Everything we know... Every single thing that we know, every experiment that's been done, every bit of evidence that we have, lends zero credibility to the concept of life after death.  Nothing points to it. Nothing infers it. Nothing explains a mechanism for it.  Nothing lends credence to it.  Of all we have and all we've done there's still zero logical reason to believe in its possibility other than merely 'wanting to'. 

Let me ask you.. If you had the capability to take emotions out of the equation and look at it with complete objectivity.  If you could take the component of "liking it to be true" out of it... Then I'd like to ask what is it scientifically or logically that you've ever learned, ever seen, ever come across, ever been made aware of, that would lead you to towards believing in its existence?  If it was just a raw logical concept where your emotions or desires didn't come into play, what would be your reasons for choosing that side of the argument? 

[dlorde]

Most of you in this thread take the position of being some sort of authority on the subject, which you are all  decidedly not.

I am as close to an expert or a person who is knowledgeable on the subject!

Because unlike you all, I have actually have had a profound near death experience and know the reality of it ?

The topic is about consciousness after death. No matter how profound, your experience - like all known experiences - was an experience of life.

[IAMREALITY]

Most of you in this thread take the position of being some sort of authority on the subject, which you are all  decidedly not.

I am as close to an expert or a person who is knowledgeable on the subject!

Because unlike you all, I have actually have had a profound near death experience and know the reality of it ?

The topic is about consciousness after death. No matter how profound, your experience - like all known experiences - was an experience of life.

Very very good point!

[kasparovitch]

there's still zero logical reason to believe

Well, the logical reason dates back to Plato and Aristotle and is unsettled to this day. The substrata to that logic lye in front of your eyes.

As I told you before, until the day you can build a consciousness in a lab, however simple it is, you cannot prove that it depends only on atoms.

My epistemological discussion finishes here as this topic is about consciousness after death.