Three stages

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

This can lead you to wrong conclusions I think

What if something actually is impossible, but you are not able to determine that. You then conclude that it is possible.

Yes.

I think possible and impossible are opposites and both are claims that have the burden of proof.

No. “Impossible” does, but “possible” is just another way of saying “don’t know”. If I can’t rule something (or anything for that matter) out definitively, then “possible” is all that’s left.   

If some thing cannot be shown to be either possible or impossible, then the conclusion is that is might be either, so no determination can be made.

But you’re conflating here the objective fact of the matter with the epistemic belief about the fact of the matter. For all I know there are many things that definitively are impossible, but in epistemological terms I cannot justifiably assign that status to any claim because I’m not omniscient. There’s a phrase that summarises this rather neatly: “the map is not the territory”.     

[jeremyp]

If I say something is impossible, I'm making a definite claim and you would be within your rights to demand good evidence to back my claim up.

If I say something is possible, it can mean anything from "I can't show it is impossible" to "I can't show it happened but I can see a way it could have happened". The former is not saying anything really, it's fence sitting (which is a legitimate position). The latter is saying a bit more IMO and i would say "life after death" falls in that category for me.

I can't show that life after death is impossible. Everything I know about human physiology tells me that life ceases at death but I can't rule it out completely. In fact, I can conceive of a couple of ways it might be true, just off the top of my head. For example, quantum mechanics tells us that there is a finite probability that the fundamental particles in a dead body might spontaneously rearrange themselves into a living body. The probability of that happening is extremely low, but if the Universe is infinite, it probably has happened somewhere. Also, if the simulation hypothesis is true, I could imagine its programmers saving our brain state at or just before death and injecting it into another simulation elsewhere.

So I am comfortable with saying life after death is possible even under NS's definition. However, I'm not challenging Sriram to show it is possible, I'm challenging him to show it happens.

[Sriram]

When death is a matter of individual experience, how can I show that an after life actually happens?! It is not a material phenomenon that can be filmed or measured.  It is a philosophical possibility and NDE's are (according to me and most others) sufficient evidence for it.

[Outrider]

When death is a matter of individual experience, how can I show that an after life actually happens?!

It does not appear that you can; given that you can't show anyone else, how can you have any confidence yourself?

It is not a material phenomenon that can be filmed or measured.

Yet the life that is finishing is, at least partially, a material phenomenon. You could attempt to justify the notion that something of life was non-material, in order for there to be a need for something 'else' for the non-material element to do, but so far you've not managed that, either.

It is a philosophical possibility and NDE's are (according to me and most others) sufficient evidence for it.

I don't know about 'most'. Whilst I'll accept that most people believe in an afterlife, I don't think 'most' people would cite NDE as the justification for their claim, the majority would just likely cite religious teaching. As we've seen from pretty exhaustive iterations of the same failed arguments, near death experiences (sort of by definition) aren't reliable evidence that something happens after death, let alone what it might be.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

If I say something is impossible, I'm making a definite claim and you would be within your rights to demand good evidence to back my claim up.

Yes, though if we’re talking in epistemological terms that’d be a fool’s errand because, axiomatically, we cannot be sure that anything is impossible because we’re not omniscient. Square circles for example are only as impossible as our ability to reason about such things, but who’s to say that that’s also true at a deeper but inaccessible level of reasoning?

(Just by way of a side bar, no doubt by the way pre the quantum age wave-particle duality would have seemed as impossible as square circles do to us now too.)     

If I say something is possible, it can mean anything from "I can't show it is impossible" to "I can't show it happened but I can see a way it could have happened". The former is not saying anything really, it's fence sitting (which is a legitimate position). The latter is saying a bit more IMO and i would say "life after death" falls in that category for me.

I can't show that life after death is impossible. Everything I know about human physiology tells me that life ceases at death but I can't rule it out completely. In fact, I can conceive of a couple of ways it might be true, just off the top of my head. For example, quantum mechanics tells us that there is a finite probability that the fundamental particles in a dead body might spontaneously rearrange themselves into a living body. The probability of that happening is extremely low, but if the Universe is infinite, it probably has happened somewhere. Also, if the simulation hypothesis is true, I could imagine its programmers saving our brain state at or just before death and injecting it into another simulation elsewhere.

So I am comfortable with saying life after death is possible even under NS's definition. However, I'm not challenging Sriram to show it is possible, I'm challenging him to show it happens.

Or better yet that it’s probable rather than just possible. He’ll never do that no matter how many times he’s asked but that’s his fundamental problem: finding a logical path from possible to probable. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

When death is a matter of individual experience, how can I show that an after life actually happens?!

That’s your problem. If you want to assert an afterlife then the burden of proof to demonstrate that rests with you, the person making the claim. It’s no use calling it “an individual experience” and then expecting people just to take your word for it.   
 

It is not a material phenomenon that can be filmed or measured.

Like leprechauns are not a material phenomenon too you mean? Again, if something can’t be “filmed or measured” then how would you know that it’s real at all?

It is a philosophical possibility…

So are leprechauns. So what though?

… and NDE's…

...that tell us no more about actual death than sex tells us about actual pregnancy remember?

…are (according to me and most others)…

A dubious claim at best, and an argumentum ad populum fallacy too.

…sufficient evidence for it.

Utter bullshit. At best NDEs tell us something about physiological processes as we approach death, but there’s no good reason to think they also tell us something about actual death too. It’s shame you always run away when you’re asked to show a path from the “Near” part to an “actual” part, but the problem doesn’t go away for all your avoidance of it.   

[Sriram]

It does not appear that you can; given that you can't show anyone else, how can you have any confidence yourself?

Yet the life that is finishing is, at least partially, a material phenomenon. You could attempt to justify the notion that something of life was non-material, in order for there to be a need for something 'else' for the non-material element to do, but so far you've not managed that, either.

I don't know about 'most'. Whilst I'll accept that most people believe in an afterlife, I don't think 'most' people would cite NDE as the justification for their claim, the majority would just likely cite religious teaching. As we've seen from pretty exhaustive iterations of the same failed arguments, near death experiences (sort of by definition) aren't reliable evidence that something happens after death, let alone what it might be.

O.

It starts with a belief and faith and later turns to a conviction based on personal experiences. Events like NDE's only confirm our beliefs. 

[Maeght]

It starts with a belief and faith and later turns to a conviction based on personal experiences. Events like NDE's only confirm our beliefs.

Confirmation bias.

[torridon]

It starts with a belief and faith and later turns to a conviction based on personal experiences. Events like NDE's only confirm our beliefs.

Which is why there is no much confusion and and so many contradictory beliefs in the world.  People start from a position of beliefs that they like, and then invest time and effort in trying to bolster them.  A true student of life has to be prepared to abandon beliefs and follow the evidence to discover wherever it leads.

[Sriram]

Beliefs are not without reason.  They are based on insights of forces working behind the scenes.  Imagining these forces in real terms results in mythology. These myths could be proved to be false from time to time. But the real forces don't go away.

You people might dismiss NDE's and OBE's as just brain related phenomena....your habitual skepticism doesn't allow you to think otherwise. But I am convinced that they are real after life events.

[Maeght]

Beliefs are not without reason.  They are based on insights of forces working behind the scenes.  Imagining these forces in real terms results in mythology. These myths could be proved to be false from time to time. But the real forces don't go away.

You people might dismiss NDE's and OBE's as just brain related phenomena....your habitual skepticism doesn't allow you to think otherwise. But I am convinced that they are real after life events.

Of course you are convinced because it fits with your pre-existing beliefs. Confirmation bias.

[Maeght]

Beliefs are not without reason.  They are based on insights of forces working behind the scenes.  Imagining these forces in real terms results in mythology. These myths could be proved to be false from time to time. But the real forces don't go away.

You people might dismiss NDE's and OBE's as just brain related phenomena....your habitual skepticism doesn't allow you to think otherwise. But I am convinced that they are real after life events.

Not accepting claims without sufficient evidence is no obstruction to thinking on such (or any) topics. Denialism, which I think is what you are referring to, does.

[torridon]

Beliefs are not without reason.  They are based on insights of forces working behind the scenes.  Imagining these forces in real terms results in mythology. These myths could be proved to be false from time to time. But the real forces don't go away.

You people might dismiss NDE's and OBE's as just brain related phenomena....your habitual skepticism doesn't allow you to think otherwise. But I am convinced that they are real after life events.

I had an OBE once, a mild one. I have no problem understanding it as a short lived aberration in otherwise normal brain function.  All our experience is essentially controlled ongoing hallucination.  It's not surprising that this process might go awry under particular circumstances.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

It starts with a belief…

When you start with a belief rather than with the evidence you’ll consider anything that confirms the belief to be evidence. That’s called confirmation bias – yet another of the fallacies on which you rely.

…and faith…

“Faith” is epistemically indistinguishable from guessing.

…and later turns to a conviction based on personal experiences.

This is a major mistake: “personal experiences” fundamentally are subjective. If you want to justify your claim to have evidence for your beliefs you need to find an objective means to do that.   

Events like NDE's only confirm our beliefs.

No they don’t. They don’t for the reasons that keep being explained to you and that you keep running away from.   

Again, you poor reasoning is letting you down here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Beliefs are not without reason.

Now you’re contradicting yourself. In your previous posts you told us “It starts with a belief and faith”. Here though you tell us it starts with reasons. You need to work out which horse you’re riding here, but if it’s now starting with reasons before you form the belief then you need to justify those reasons if you want the belief to be taken seriously. So far at least your reasons (such as they are) have been hopeless.

They are based on insights of forces working behind the scenes.

If you want to claim too have “insights” then you need to explain why they’re different from dumb guessing. Until and unless you can do that there’s no reason to treat them anything but dumb guessing.

Imagining these forces in real terms results in mythology.

What “forces”? So far, all you’ve done is to assert then rather than demonstrate them.

These myths could be proved to be false from time to time. But the real forces don't go away.

Not if they’re not there in the first place they can’t, no – see above. You have quite the facility for just asserting things into existence, and then making various claims about them.

You people might dismiss NDE's and OBE's as just brain related phenomena....

Explain, not dismiss but ok.

…your habitual skepticism doesn't allow you to think otherwise. But I am convinced that they are real after life events.

But your convictions rest variously on ad homs, further logical fallacies and unqualified and evidence-denying assertions. As (presumably) you’d like people here not to think them to be nonsense, why are you never concerned with addressing these problems?

Again, you poor reasoning is letting you down here.

[jeremyp]

Jeremy,

Yes, though if we’re talking in epistemological terms that’d be a fool’s errand because, axiomatically, we cannot be sure that anything is impossible because we’re not omniscient. Square circles for example are only as impossible as our ability to reason about such things, but who’s to say that that’s also true at a deeper but inaccessible level of reasoning?

No, square circles are definitely impossible because that is a matter of definition. If there is a right angle anywhere on the perimeter of a shape, it is not a circle by definition. I know what you are trying to say, but this is a bad example.

In fact, we can say that any mathematical theorem with a proof is definitely true even if we assume that human reasoning is not the be all and end all. In maths we define a few axioms which we often say are "self evidently true" although they don't have to be and then we use our reasoning abilities to work out new results, but, at the end of the day, these new results are tautologies: we don't have any new information. It was all encoded in the axioms and the reasoning system.

Or better yet that it’s probable rather than just possible. He’ll never do that no matter how many times he’s asked but that’s his fundamental problem: finding a logical path from possible to probable.

Yes. The evidence for life after death is meagre at the moment and more easily explained by hallucinations and hoaxes.I need a lot more to tip the balance of probabilities into the more likely than not region.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

No, square circles are definitely impossible because that is a matter of definition. If there is a right angle anywhere on the perimeter of a shape, it is not a circle by definition. I know what you are trying to say, but this is a bad example.

But you’re forgetting that definitions are also human-made. Pre the quantum age for example a wave was in part defined as “not capable of acting as a particle” and vice versa because that was as far as contemporary reasoning and evidence went, yet it was wrong. That’s the point – “If there is a right angle anywhere on the perimeter of a shape, it is not a circle by definition” is a stating of a contemporary and localised definition, but not necessarily of a universal truth.

In fact, we can say that any mathematical theorem with a proof is definitely true even if we assume that human reasoning is not the be all and end all.

No we can’t. The most we can say is that a mathematical theorem is “definitely true” but only insofar our ability to reason tells us that it’s definitely true. How for example would you eliminate even the possibility that “you” are actually a simulation in a celestial computer game that’s just programmed to think that 2+2=4?   

In maths we define a few axioms which we often say are "self evidently true" although they don't have to be and then we use our reasoning abilities to work out new results, but, at the end of the day, these new results are tautologies: we don't have any new information. It was all encoded in the axioms and the reasoning system.

Yes axioms are assumptions that we have to accept as true to serve as premises for further reasoning, but we cannot know for certain that the axioms are certainly true unless we're also omniscient. Axioms are functionally and usefully true, but it's overreaching to assume them to be therefore universally true too. That’s the point.   

Yes. The evidence for life after death is meagre at the moment and more easily explained by hallucinations and hoaxes.I need a lot more to tip the balance of probabilities into the more likely than not region.

As would anyone possessed of a functioning intellect…

[Sriram]

I had an OBE once, a mild one. I have no problem understanding it as a short lived aberration in otherwise normal brain function.  All our experience is essentially controlled ongoing hallucination.  It's not surprising that this process might go awry under particular circumstances.

OBE's can be had by anyone because we all have a soul (we are the soul in fact) which can at times (no idea why) leave the body temporarily. 

https://www.healthline.com/health/out-of-body-experience#takeaway

***********

A recent 2022 reviewTrusted Source tried to explore this by evaluating a variety of studies and case reports evaluating consciousness, cognitive awareness, and recall in people who survived cardiac arrest.

They noted that some people report experiencing a separation from their body during resuscitation and some even reported an awareness of events they wouldn’t have seen from their actual perspective.

In addition, one study included in the review noted that two participants reported having both visual and auditory experiences while in cardiac arrest. Only one was well enough to follow up, but he gave an accurate, detailed description of what took place for about three minutes of his resuscitation from cardiac arrest.

************

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

OBE's can be had by anyone because we all have a soul (we are the soul in fact) which can at times (no idea why) leave the body temporarily.

Thank you for you entirely un-evidenced blind faith claim. Here's mine:

Leprechauns are definitely musical because they must be to be able to play the harp (no idea why).

OK, your turn...

Alternatively you could perhaps consider desisting with the mindless bullshit and instead trying at least to address the questions that hitherto you've just avoided. You might for example want to begin with finally telling us why you think Near death experiences tell us any more about actual death than, say, sex tells us about pregnancy.

Your call though.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

OBE's can be had by anyone because we all have a soul (we are the soul in fact) which can at times (no idea why) leave the body temporarily.

https://www.healthline.com/health/out-of-body-experience#takeaway

***********

A recent 2022 reviewTrusted Source tried to explore this by evaluating a variety of studies and case reports evaluating consciousness, cognitive awareness, and recall in people who survived cardiac arrest.

They noted that some people report experiencing a separation from their body during resuscitation and some even reported an awareness of events they wouldn’t have seen from their actual perspective.

In addition, one study included in the review noted that two participants reported having both visual and auditory experiences while in cardiac arrest. Only one was well enough to follow up, but he gave an accurate, detailed description of what took place for about three minutes of his resuscitation from cardiac arrest.

Ooh, epic quote mining there Sriram. Here are some of the bits you cut out that completely undermine your blind faith claims (emphases added in bold):

“An out-of-body experience is often described as feeling like you’ve left your physical body. There are many potential causes, including several medical conditions and experiences.”

“Still, there’s no scientific evidence to support the idea that a person’s consciousness can actually travel outside the body.”

‘What can cause them?

No one’s sure about the exact causes of OBEs, but experts have identified several possible explanations.

Stress or trauma

A frightening, dangerous, or difficult situation can provoke a fear response, which might cause you to dissociate from the situation and feel as if you’re an onlooker. This may make you feel as though you are watching the events from somewhere outside your body.

According to 2017 researchTrusted Source reviewing the experience of women in labor, OBEs during childbirth aren’t unusual.
The study didn’t specifically link OBEs to post-traumatic stress disorder, but the authors did point out that women who had OBEs had either gone through trauma during labor or another situation not related to childbirth.

This suggests that OBEs could occur as a way to cope with trauma, but more research is needed on this potential link.
Medical conditions

Experts have linked several medical and mental health conditions to OBEs, including:

•   epilepsy
•   migraine
•   cardiac arrest
•   brain injuries
•   depression
•   anxiety
•   Guillain-Barré syndrome

Dissociative disorders, particularly depersonalization-derealization disorder, can involve frequent feelings or episodes where you seem to be observing yourself from outside your body.

Sleep paralysis has also been noted as a possible cause of OBEs. It refers to a temporary state of waking paralysis that occurs during REM sleep and often involvesTrusted Source hallucinations.

Research suggestsTrusted Source many people who have OBEs with a near-death experience also often experience sleep paralysis.

In addition, a review of literature from 2020 suggests that sleep-wake disturbances may contributeTrusted Source to dissociative symptoms. This can include a feeling of leaving your body.

Medication and drugs

Some people report having an OBE while under the influence of anesthesia.

Other substances, including cannabis, ketamine, or hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD, can causeTrusted Source this sensation.

Near-death experiences

OBEs can occur during near-death experiences, often alongside other phenomena like flashbacks of previous memories or seeing a light at the end of a tunnel.

Though it’s not clear exactly why this happens, it’s believed to be caused by disruptions in certain areas of the brain involved with processing sensory information. A 2021 reviewTrusted Source suggests that these experiences may be more likely to occur during life threatening situations, which can include:

•   cardiac arrest
•   traumatic injury
•   brain hemorrhage
•   drowning
•   suffocation

Strong G-forces

Pilots and astronauts sometimes experience OBEs when strong gravitational forces, or G-forces, are encountered. This is because it causesTrusted Source blood to pool in the lower body, which can lead to loss of conscious and may induce an OBE.

Extreme G-forces can also causeTrusted Source spatial disorientation, peripheral vision loss, and disconnection between cognition and the ability to act.’

And just to put the last nail in your coffin…

“Paranormal

Though not backed by research, some people believe that OBEs can occur when your soul or spirit leaves your body...

...However, research has not been able to show that these practices cause OBEs.”[/quote]

In other words, according to the article you linked to, there's lots of evidence for naturalistic causes of NDEs and OBEs, and none at all for your woo conclusions.

If you really want to try citing trusted sources for support you might in future want to consider finding some that don’t actually undermine the argument you’re trying to make.

Just a thought.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Statement 1: women give birth to babies.

Statement 2: storks deliver babies.

Statement 1: has overwhelming evidence.

Statement 2: has no evidence whatsoever.

You: babies are definitely delivered by storks.

Your arguments:

- Just because you can’t film or measure storks doing it doesn’t mean storks aren’t doing it

- Your scepticism prevents you from accepting the obvious truth of my claim about storks

- Lots of people think it’s storks

- You’re suffering from microscopic thinking, so can’t focus properly on the stork delivery big picture

- The evidence for storks delivering babies could be everywhere (though I can’t actually produce any of it)

- Here’s an article about storks delivering babies that makes it very clear that there’s no evidence for it whatsoever Oh wait, what? 

Have I missed any?

[jeremyp]

Jeremy,

But you’re forgetting that definitions are also human-made.

No I am not. I am explicitly accepting that. Squares and circles are abstract concepts defined within the framework of human reasoning. They are definitionally mutually exclusive. You may say some other reasoning framework exists somewhere in which squares and circles can be the same thing, but the objects to which you are referring are explicitly not the squares and circles of our logical framework.

Pre the quantum age for example a wave was in part defined as “not capable of acting as a particle” and vice versa

Was it? I don't believe that is the case. I think people just thought of them as different phenomena. People don't usually define things in terms of what they are not.

because that was as far as contemporary reasoning and evidence went, yet it was wrong.

I don't think the problem arose until people started observing objects that appeared to behave like particles in some circumstances and waves in others. The resolution was simple in that it turned out that quantum level objects are neither particles (in the Newtonian sense) nor waves but objects whose behaviour can be described by mathematics that looks identical to the mathematics of waves.

That’s the point – “If there is a right angle anywhere on the perimeter of a shape, it is not a circle by definition” is a stating of a contemporary and localised definition, but not necessarily of a universal truth.

It is by definition because it is a definition.

No we can’t. The most we can say is that a mathematical theorem is “definitely true” but only insofar our ability to reason tells us that it’s definitely true. How for example would you eliminate even the possibility that “you” are actually a simulation in a celestial computer game that’s just programmed to think that 2+2=4?

But in our "celestial computer", 2+2=4 ids a fundamental truth. It may not be in some other celestial computer (seems unlikely though), but it is certainly true that "in our reality 2+2=4"
 

Yes axioms are assumptions that we have to accept as true to serve as premises for further reasoning, but we cannot know for certain that the axioms are certainly true unless we're also omniscient. Axioms are functionally and usefully true, but it's overreaching to assume them to be therefore universally true too. That’s the point.   

Wrong. Axioms do not have to be "true". Mathematicians use them and invent them and see if interesting things come out in the wash. For example, if you take as your axioms the five geometric axioms of Euclid, you can show by a line of logical reasoning that the angles of a triangle always add up to two right angles. However, it turns out that you don't have to accept one of the axioms - the "parallel postulate". If you substitute it with a different axiom, you find that the angles of a triangle do not add up to two right angles. The statement "the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees" is false, but the statement "if we accept Euclid's axioms including the parallel postulate, then the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees" is true."

There really is no such thing as a square circle.

There might be life after death, but I doubt it and I would bet my house that there isn't.

[Sriram]

Sriram,

Ooh, epic quote mining there Sriram. Here are some of the bits you cut out that completely undermine your blind faith claims (emphases added in bold):

“An out-of-body experience is often described as feeling like you’ve left your physical body. There are many potential causes, including several medical conditions and experiences.”

“Still, there’s no scientific evidence to support the idea that a person’s consciousness can actually travel outside the body.”

‘What can cause them?

No one’s sure about the exact causes of OBEs, but experts have identified several possible explanations.

Stress or trauma

A frightening, dangerous, or difficult situation can provoke a fear response, which might cause you to dissociate from the situation and feel as if you’re an onlooker. This may make you feel as though you are watching the events from somewhere outside your body.

According to 2017 researchTrusted Source reviewing the experience of women in labor, OBEs during childbirth aren’t unusual.
The study didn’t specifically link OBEs to post-traumatic stress disorder, but the authors did point out that women who had OBEs had either gone through trauma during labor or another situation not related to childbirth.

This suggests that OBEs could occur as a way to cope with trauma, but more research is needed on this potential link.
Medical conditions

Experts have linked several medical and mental health conditions to OBEs, including:

•   epilepsy
•   migraine
•   cardiac arrest
•   brain injuries
•   depression
•   anxiety
•   Guillain-Barré syndrome

Dissociative disorders, particularly depersonalization-derealization disorder, can involve frequent feelings or episodes where you seem to be observing yourself from outside your body.

Sleep paralysis has also been noted as a possible cause of OBEs. It refers to a temporary state of waking paralysis that occurs during REM sleep and often involvesTrusted Source hallucinations.

Research suggestsTrusted Source many people who have OBEs with a near-death experience also often experience sleep paralysis.

In addition, a review of literature from 2020 suggests that sleep-wake disturbances may contributeTrusted Source to dissociative symptoms. This can include a feeling of leaving your body.

Medication and drugs

Some people report having an OBE while under the influence of anesthesia.

Other substances, including cannabis, ketamine, or hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD, can causeTrusted Source this sensation.

Near-death experiences

OBEs can occur during near-death experiences, often alongside other phenomena like flashbacks of previous memories or seeing a light at the end of a tunnel.

Though it’s not clear exactly why this happens, it’s believed to be caused by disruptions in certain areas of the brain involved with processing sensory information. A 2021 reviewTrusted Source suggests that these experiences may be more likely to occur during life threatening situations, which can include:

•   cardiac arrest
•   traumatic injury
•   brain hemorrhage
•   drowning
•   suffocation

Strong G-forces

Pilots and astronauts sometimes experience OBEs when strong gravitational forces, or G-forces, are encountered. This is because it causesTrusted Source blood to pool in the lower body, which can lead to loss of conscious and may induce an OBE.

Extreme G-forces can also causeTrusted Source spatial disorientation, peripheral vision loss, and disconnection between cognition and the ability to act.’

And just to put the last nail in your coffin…

“Paranormal

Though not backed by research, some people believe that OBEs can occur when your soul or spirit leaves your body...

...However, research has not been able to show that these practices cause OBEs.”

In other words, according to the article you linked to, there's lots of evidence for naturalistic causes of NDEs and OBEs, and none at all for your woo conclusions.

If you really want to try citing trusted sources for support you might in future want to consider finding some that don’t actually undermine the argument you’re trying to make.

Just a thought.

Scientists are not sure what it is. They have noted instances where the two participants reported having both visual and auditory experiences while in cardiac arrest. One gave an accurate, detailed description of what took place for about three minutes of his resuscitation from cardiac arrest.

Even one such instance is enough to indicate that there is more to it than meets the eye. You people however are cocksure that it is all a hallucination....which is wrong. 

In fact, during epilepsy, heart attacks etc...the soul could leave the body temporarily.   You only accept what you can see and measure....that need not always be the truth.

[torridon]

Scientists are not sure what it is. They have noted instances where the two participants reported having both visual and auditory experiences while in cardiac arrest. One gave an accurate, detailed description of what took place for about three minutes of his resuscitation from cardiac arrest.

Even one such instance is enough to indicate that there is more to it than meets the eye. You people however are cocksure that it is all a hallucination....which is wrong. 

In fact, during epilepsy, heart attacks etc...the soul could leave the body temporarily.   You only accept what you can see and measure....that need not always be the truth.

That these events are hallucinatory episodes is what research suggests.  All experience is sustained ongoing hallucination generated by brain function.  If you open your eyes and look at something, it is not the external thing you are seeing, you are having a visual experience that is generated from within by the workings of mind.  Sensory information arriving on twin optic nerve fibres merely modulates the experience, it does not generate it. This is at the heart of understanding why illusions occur.  Given this, it is hardly surprising that we sometimes experience altered states of consciousness; therefore we have no longer have any need for prescientific concepts like 'souls' which have no basis in ether evidence or reason.

[Sriram]

That these events are hallucinatory episodes is what research suggests.  All experience is sustained ongoing hallucination generated by brain function.  If you open your eyes and look at something, it is not the external thing you are seeing, you are having a visual experience that is generated from within by the workings of mind.  Sensory information arriving on twin optic nerve fibres merely modulates the experience, it does not generate it. This is at the heart of understanding why illusions occur.  Given this, it is hardly surprising that we sometimes experience altered states of consciousness; therefore we have no longer have any need for prescientific concepts like 'souls' which have no basis in ether evidence or reason.

You still have these archaic ideas of prescience ideas and post science ideas. Reality is one. We had some models earlier and we have some models now. It is not necessary that all the models of today are necessarily correct and all earlier models are necessarily wrong.  We may have to re-look at some earlier models and see if they work along with today's models to present a more meaningful picture.

Problem is that when something goes against your fondly held models ....even if presented by eminent people of your own scientific community....you people react violently and dismissively....