NDE

[Stranger]

It is worth noting though that even if we take the second definition, it isn't clear how we can tell when exactly the experiences occur.

Exactly, the first "line of evidence" in the first article is stated as "Lucid, organized experiences while unconscious, comatose, or clinically dead". Obviously they can't interview the person at the time, so what they are dealing with is a memory, so how do you tell when the memory was formed? It could easily be the result of entering or recovering from that state.

[jeremyp]

Please read the first link I have given in the OP.  Nothing more I can say.

Just because someone has called it 'Near' death experience does not mean that that word would itself define and limit the phenomenon. Researchers like Dr.Sam Parnia have confirmed that these are 'after-death' experiences.

You simply can't answer it can you.

[jeremyp]

It isn't really wriggling. The problem in discussions on this is that it we define death as a state that is irreversible then we declare these experiences as having to happen before death. If, however, death is defined as a state with certain physical conditions e.g. Lack of observable brain activity for x period of time then in theory an after 'death' experience might be possible. Unless the discussion is based on an agreed definition, it is simply people talking past each other.

It is worth noting though that even if we take the second definition, it isn't clear how we can tell when exactly the experiences occur.

If death is defined as lack of brain activity, we still can't be sure that the NDE's occurred while the person was dead. In fact, the evidence would appear to be that they don't, because of the lack of brain activity, although I would grant that Sriram doesn't believe brain activity is necessary for a person to have experiences.

[Sriram]

You simply can't answer it can you.

What can I answer? I have already linked the opinions of doctors in the field. I am not a researcher. Check the first link. 

[Sriram]

If death is defined as lack of brain activity, we still can't be sure that the NDE's occurred while the person was dead. In fact, the evidence would appear to be that they don't, because of the lack of brain activity, although I would grant that Sriram doesn't believe brain activity is necessary for a person to have experiences.

Yes indeed. Experiences are had by Consciousness or Soul or whatever you want to call it. The brain is only a conduit for having physical experiences.....but not essential for non physical experiences.

NDE is a non physical experience and the brain is not necessary. That is the whole idea of the Soul...or Consciousness being independent of the body and brain.

[jeremyp]

Yes indeed. Experiences are had by Consciousness or Soul or whatever you want to call it. The brain is only a conduit for having physical experiences.....but not essential for non physical experiences.

That's just your assertion. You have no evidence that it is true.

NDE is a non physical experience and the brain is not necessary.

How do you know? Nobody without a brain has ever had an NDE. Nobody with a brain has verifiably had an NDE while the brain was not functioning.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Agreed, of course, but I think in the end it boils down to wishful thinking on the part of those who just cannot accept that the actual, final death is just that - actual and final.

I always think that Michael Rosen expressed it all best in the essay he wrote to help himself come to terms with the death of his son from meningitis.

https://www.allaboutgod.com/john-stott-annihilationism-

[torridon]

Yes indeed. Experiences are had by Consciousness or Soul or whatever you want to call it. The brain is only a conduit for having physical experiences.....but not essential for non physical experiences.

Consciousness doesn't 'have' experience.  Consciousness is experience.

[Bramble]

NDE is a non physical experience and the brain is not necessary.

Seeing and hearing are non physical then? Amazing what you learn here.

[Sriram]

That's just your assertion. You have no evidence that it is true.How do you know? Nobody without a brain has ever had an NDE. Nobody with a brain has verifiably had an NDE while the brain was not functioning.

Yes....there is no evidence....in the form that you want it! According to me, NDE's are the evidence for it....and it fits in with the traditional idea of an incorporeal soul.

[Sriram]

Consciousness doesn't 'have' experience.  Consciousness is experience.

What? All experiences are had by something...the Subject...the Self. That is Consciousness.

[Gordon]

Yes....there is no evidence....in the form that you want it! According to me, NDE's are the evidence for it....and it fits in with the traditional idea of an incorporeal soul.

The problem there is, of course, and as we see from the efforts of Alan, that the 'soul' idea is without any rational supporting arguments or evidence.

[torridon]

What? All experiences are had by something...the Subject...the Self. That is Consciousness.

it wouldn't make any sense to say that my consciousness is conscious.  You could that I am conscious or you are conscious, but you cannot say that your consciousness is conscious. You keep mixing up consciousness and self as if they were interchangeable. Consciousness is a temporal state, or a process, but not a thing.  You wouldn't refer to your metabolism as if it were a thing. These are things that livings things do.

We may have to let go of the intuition that experience is 'had' by an experiencer, also. I think the experiencer is also a mental construction, as is the experience itself. All part of the phenomenology of conscious mind.

[wigginhall]

The odd thing is that Sriram seems to be selling a version of dualism, thus, something "has" an experience.  I suppose AB would say that the soul has it!  Trouble is, nobody can find this something.

[ekim]

it wouldn't make any sense to say that my consciousness is conscious.  You could that I am conscious or you are conscious, but you cannot say that your consciousness is conscious. You keep mixing up consciousness and self as if they were interchangeable. Consciousness is a temporal state, or a process, but not a thing.  You wouldn't refer to your metabolism as if it were a thing. These are things that livings things do.

We may have to let go of the intuition that experience is 'had' by an experiencer, also. I think the experiencer is also a mental construction, as is the experience itself. All part of the phenomenology of conscious mind.

I don't think Sriram is mixing up consciousness and self, he is trying to use 'near fit' English words to represent the word 'Atman' which is used in Hindu philosophies to represent the subject 'I' or 'Self' with a capital 'S' to distinguish it from Ahamkara or  ego (self with a small 's') which most people identify with.  A number of the Yogic practices are dedicated to disidentifying with egoic practices and structures which includes concepts and conceptualising so that consciousness is recognised in its pristine state, free from the constraints of the Ahamkara.  The observing consciousness and the observed consciousness are as one.   

You say 'I think the experiencer is also a mental construction, as is the experience itself.' From the 'Hindu' perspective this is only so when attempting to convey the outcome of the practices in thoughts and words to others.  This is why inner stillness and conscious detachment from mental activities has precedence over conceptualising about 'self'.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Most of you don't agree with my views and don't believe in any incorporeal entity that could exist outside the body. This is old news and it is fine!

However, why many of you are unable the understand the concept of an incorporeal, 'alive and experiencing' entity that exits outside the body, is what is surprising. The idea is as old as the hills and I am sure your grandmothers (or mothers) will be able to explain the idea to you.

All over the world the traditional idea is about a soul that inhabits the body and exits at the time of death. The soul (the Subject, Self, you) is a living, experiencing and active entity by itself and only occupies the body the way a person could be sitting inside a robot. When the person leaves the robot he continues to see and experience everything, probably with greater freedom than before.  Why this idea is so alien to many of you and why you seem to think of it as unheard of......is what is surprising!

Cheers.

Sriram

 

[torridon]

Hi everyone,

Most of you don't agree with my views and don't believe in any incorporeal entity that could exist outside the body. This is old news and it is fine!

However, why many of you are unable the understand the concept of an incorporeal, 'alive and experiencing' entity that exits outside the body, is what is surprising. The idea is as old as the hills and I am sure your grandmothers (or mothers) will be able to explain the idea to you.

All over the world the traditional idea is about a soul that inhabits the body and exits at the time of death. The soul (the Subject, Self, you) is a living, experiencing and active entity by itself and only occupies the body the way a person could be sitting inside a robot. When the person leaves the robot he continues to see and experience everything, probably with greater freedom than before.  Why this idea is so alien to many of you and why you seem to think of it as unheard of......is what is surprising!

Cheers.

Sriram

I'd accept it is a widespread intuition and belief, however many of our intuitions have been shown to be wrong or baseless by science.  There is no concept of soul in science, no evidence for such a thing, rather what we do have is minds but there is no evidence of minds existing outside or independent of brains. A mind is something created by a body to better look after itself, so what would be the point or the provenance of a disembodied mind ? When I was just two cells I didn't have a mind, a mind is something that develops in parallel with the development of the body and when the brain becomes degraded through injury or disease the mind also suffers corresponding degradation. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that a mind is the subjective aspect of a brain.  The idea of a soul persists in popular culture and in religions and it is not hard to see why, it appeals to our universal disdain for dying, but popular does not equate to true.

[Sriram]

I'd accept it is a widespread intuition and belief, however many of our intuitions have been shown to be wrong or baseless by science.  There is no concept of soul in science, no evidence for such a thing, rather what we do have is minds but there is no evidence of minds existing outside or independent of brains. A mind is something created by a body to better look after itself, so what would be the point or the provenance of a disembodied mind ? When I was just two cells I didn't have a mind, a mind is something that develops in parallel with the development of the body and when the brain becomes degraded through injury or disease the mind also suffers corresponding degradation. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that a mind is the subjective aspect of a brain.  The idea of a soul persists in popular culture and in religions and it is not hard to see why, it appeals to our universal disdain for dying, but popular does not equate to true.

I am not talking about what you believe or what I believe.  We know all that.

I am asking why some people are pretending not to understand or comprehend a concept that is an old and traditional idea all over the world. Nothing new about the idea of a soul that is capable of living outside the body!  No reason to go into a tizzy about it!

[torridon]

I am not talking about what you believe or what I believe.  We know all that.

I am asking why some people are pretending not to understand or comprehend a concept that is an old and traditional idea all over the world. Nothing new about the idea of a soul that is capable of living outside the body!  No reason to go into a tizzy about it!

If you have particular people in mind then be clearer who you are talking about otherwise how will anyone know.  Off the top of my head I can't remember having come across someone pretending to fail to understand these traditional beliefs.

[Sriram]

I'd accept it is a widespread intuition and belief, however many of our intuitions have been shown to be wrong or baseless by science.  There is no concept of soul in science, no evidence for such a thing, rather what we do have is minds but there is no evidence of minds existing outside or independent of brains. A mind is something created by a body to better look after itself, so what would be the point or the provenance of a disembodied mind ? When I was just two cells I didn't have a mind, a mind is something that develops in parallel with the development of the body and when the brain becomes degraded through injury or disease the mind also suffers corresponding degradation. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that a mind is the subjective aspect of a brain.  The idea of a soul persists in popular culture and in religions and it is not hard to see why, it appeals to our universal disdain for dying, but popular does not equate to true.

The point is that it is not just about popular culture anymore.  There are thousands of cases of NDE's studied by experts, which indicate that the popular belief could in fact, be true.   That is what I am talking about.

[torridon]

The point is that it is not just about popular culture anymore.  There are thousands of cases of NDE's studied by experts, which indicate that the popular belief could in fact, be true.   That is what I am talking about.

That doesn't equate to people pretending to not understand traditional beliefs.

[Gordon]

I am not talking about what you believe or what I believe.  We know all that.

I am asking why some people are pretending not to understand or comprehend a concept that is an old and traditional idea all over the world. Nothing new about the idea of a soul that is capable of living outside the body!  No reason to go into a tizzy about it!

I don't think any of us are pretending or getting 'in a tizzy', as you suggest, since the 'soul' idea is not new: it is simply that many of us view the idea of 'soul' as being groundless superstition (just like 'Gods') that dates from antiquity.

Even if the 'soul' idea survives due to the tradition aspect you mention that, taken in isolation, would be a fallacious argument anyway, and since the alleged evidence, such as the two links in your OP, contains more holes than the average colander then, as things stand, there are no good reasons to take the 'soul' idea seriously even though some people remain wedded to the idea due to tradition(s).

[Gordon]

The point is that it is not just about popular culture anymore.  There are thousands of cases of NDE's studied by experts, which indicate that the popular belief could in fact, be true.   That is what I am talking about.

I think that here, Sriram, you are making a fallacious appeal to authority where, judged on the likes of the links in your OP, the authorities you cite aren't especially authoritative.

[SusanDoris]

The point is that it is not just about popular culture anymore.  There are thousands of cases of NDE's studied by experts, which indicate that the popular belief could in fact, be true.   That is what I am talking about.

In other words there are many thousands of people who are gullible enough, and are fearful of reality or death and ho prefer to believe  fantasy  enough, to believe there is such a thing as an experience after death to which some have, they believe, approached.

[ekim]

I'd accept it is a widespread intuition and belief, however many of our intuitions have been shown to be wrong or baseless by science.  There is no concept of soul in science, no evidence for such a thing, rather what we do have is minds but there is no evidence of minds existing outside or independent of brains. A mind is something created by a body to better look after itself, so what would be the point or the provenance of a disembodied mind ? When I was just two cells I didn't have a mind, a mind is something that develops in parallel with the development of the body and when the brain becomes degraded through injury or disease the mind also suffers corresponding degradation. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that a mind is the subjective aspect of a brain.  The idea of a soul persists in popular culture and in religions and it is not hard to see why, it appeals to our universal disdain for dying, but popular does not equate to true.

I think there is the usual confusion over words here because of the differences between Western thought and Eastern thought.  'Soul' is a translation of the New Testament Greek word 'psyche' which has become associated with 'mind'  with its mental forms and processes and is studied as such in psychology.  The Hindu word 'Atman' is more associated with a simple consciousness free from its attachments to such a mind.  From a Hindu perspective, if you die with those attachments this determines the nature of your reincarnation.   NDE's may lend credibility to this belief.  I suppose that the Abrahamic version is if you  die with evil attachments you go to Hell or maybe have them purged in Purgatory.