Recalled Experience of Death (RED)

[Nearly Sane]

I disagree entirely - I think you are misunderstanding the differences between the definition of death and an understanding of the processes leading to death and (if you are that way inclined) what happens after death. But the definition is very clear.

Death is defined as the irreversible cessation of all biological functions that sustain an organism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death

So firstly the notion of recall after death, with recall requiring the use of functioning physiological/neurological processes is an oxymoron as, by definition, if someone is death those attributes have been irreversibly lost, so if they have come back the person is not and was not dead.

Further, with the advances in medical practice there is a lot of challenge to the point at which death actually occurs, specifically when those processes have irreversible ceased. And there is debate over situations where someone is not dead by the definition, but has lost key functions (while others remain) that are deemed to be essential to the person, hence the various notions of 'brain death'. But you will note that these terms caveat brain death; brain-stem death; clinical death. They need to be caveated because in none of those cases is the organism actually dead according to the definition that requires irreversible cessation of all biological functions that sustain an organism.
No they don't - they may provide an interesting insight into the process of dying but they tell us nothing about being dead as in no case where someone is able to recount a NDE etc was that person dead, because, by definition they never demonstrated an irreversible cessation of all biological functions that sustain an organism because those biological functions came back.

I think the 'irreversible' bit does lean to the circukarvin discussions of what being dead might be like if thete is such a thing as consciousness after death. Like many things definitions of death can be different in context.

As you note medical advances have meant that we are have influenced the point when that 'irreversibleness' occurs. This means there are people who would once have been declared dead who we now 'reverse' the process for. Given that thise people who we have done that for have experience of a time that previously we would have said they were dead, then in one view it is an after death experience.

Note I'm not making a medical pount here, rather looking at how we look at describing this in a wider context.

[Nearly Sane]

The point in question here is evidence that conscious awareness can exist when there is no measurable brain activity.  In the vast majority of cases the cessation of brain activity is permanent, and there is no opportunity for the person to recount what happens when physical brain action ceases.  The recounted experiences of people who were brain dead and came back to physical life have several things in common - a feeling of love and joy which words cannot describe, a reluctance to return to their material bodies, an awareness of being greeted by past relatives or friends and being filled with vast amounts of knowledge in a short time period.

Not universally in common, in general imagery is cukturally influenced, and the experiences also have comminality with some drug taking. Is death just a good trip? Or a bad one in some cases?

[Outrider]

The point in question here is evidence that conscious awareness can exist when there is no measurable brain activity.

We understand that, but the same sensations and experiences are reported in other situations of extreme neural stress, which suggests that it's not the 'proximity to death' part that's directly relevant. It also undermines the hypothesis derived from the 'near death' element that this is evidence for 'souls' or some other non-neurological element of the human psyche.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB.

The point in question here is evidence that conscious awareness can exist when there is no measurable brain activity.

No it isn’t. “Measurable” activity is only an indicator of the contemporaneous ability to measure such things, not necessarily of actual death. Try Romeo and Juliet to see what happens when the two are confused. 

In the vast majority of cases the cessation of brain activity is permanent, and there is no opportunity for the person to recount what happens when physical brain action ceases.

So far as we know, that’s true in all cases in which brain activity has actually ceased (rather than just become undetectable with the available methods and tools).
 

The recounted experiences of people who were brain dead and came back to physical life have several things in common - a feeling of love and joy which words cannot describe, a reluctance to return to their material bodies, an awareness of being greeted by past relatives or friends and being filled with vast amounts of knowledge in a short time period.

Yes, which is why for example some indulge in asphyxiophilia – apparently the euphoria etc thereby experienced is quite the high. 

[ProfessorDavey]

As you note medical advances have meant that we are have influenced the point when that 'irreversibleness' occurs. This means there are people who would once have been declared dead who we now 'reverse' the process for. Given that thise people who we have done that for have experience of a time that previously we would have said they were dead, then in one view it is an after death experience.

Not sure I agree - the key point about the definition of death is its irreversibility. Therefore as medical interventions advance then the point at which death occurs (i.e. it becomes irreversible) also shifts. So although someone today may be able to be resuscitated through intervention when they wouldn't have been 200 years ago doesn't mean that person is 'dead' - they aren't as there is clearly reversibility. And, by definition, if someone is able to provide a view on what they experienced prior to resuscitation (and restoration of key physiological/neurological functions) then they weren't 'dead' during that phase as there was no irreversible cessation of those processes.

So these experiences cannot be described as 'after death' as definitionally there was no death - they could be classed as near death in a situation where death was actually averted, but not after death.

[Nearly Sane]

Not sure I agree - the key point about the definition of death is its irreversibility. Therefore as medical interventions advance then the point at which death occurs (i.e. it becomes irreversible) also shifts. So although someone today may be able to be resuscitated through intervention when they wouldn't have been 200 years ago doesn't mean that person is 'dead' - they aren't as there is clearly reversibility. And, by definition, if someone is able to provide a view on what they experienced prior to resuscitation (and restoration of key physiological/neurological functions) then they weren't 'dead' during that phase as there was no irreversible cessation of those processes.

So these experiences cannot be described as 'after death' as definitionally there was no death - they could be classed as near death in a situation where death was actually averted, but not after death.

That's just restating the circular approach, and continuing to look at it from a specific medical approach. If there is such a thing as consciousness extending beyond what specific line we can draw at any time as the 'irreversible' bit, then using the term in the way you do makes discussion impossible. Given that billions believe that consciousness does extend beyond death then it seems difficult to have a discussion about why one thinks they are wrong by pointing to a definition that they don't accept.

[Sriram]

Not universally in common, in general imagery is cukturally influenced, and the experiences also have comminality with some drug taking. Is death just a good trip? Or a bad one in some cases?

It only means that Consciousness can detach itself from the body under different circumstances, not necessarily only at death. However, during death it becomes permanent.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's just restating the circular approach, and continuing to look at it from a specific medical approach.

I don't think it is a circular approach, merely using the definition of death. And surely any meaningful definition of death relates to the end of life, which is in itself defined in terms of ongoing biological processes.

If there is such a thing as consciousness extending beyond what specific line we can draw at any time as the 'irreversible' bit, then using the term in the way you do makes discussion impossible. Given that billions believe that consciousness does extend beyond death then it seems difficult to have a discussion about why one thinks they are wrong by pointing to a definition that they don't accept.

But isn't that the issue - that there are those that consider that consciousness is able to continue following the irreversible cessation of physiological/neurological processes (i.e. death), thereby decoupling consciousness from biology. That would certainly appear to be the view of many religious people, not least the likes of Sriram and AB on these boards. Now I don't think there is any evidence for this whatsoever, but that is surely their argument.

Now following on from this, were someone's consciousness to be able to communicate to others despite an irreversible cessation of biological processes then this would be 'after death' - some people think this can happen - I've seen no credible evidence for this. However if someone is resuscitated and those biological processes have not irreversibly ceased then there has been no death and whatever they may tell you cannot be an experience of death, because they were never dead.

[Nearly Sane]

It only means that Consciousness can detach itself from the body under different circumstances, not necessarily only at death. However, during death it becomes permanent.

But that's not what you believe if you are arguing for RED, since you are arguing the person is remembering sonething that you think is death?

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think it is a circular approach, merely using the definition of death. And surely any meaningful definition of death relates to the end of life, which is in itself defined in terms of ongoing biological processes.
But isn't that the issue - that there are those that consider that consciousness is able to continue following the irreversible cessation of physiological/neurological processes (i.e. death), thereby decoupling consciousness from biology. That would certainly appear to be the view of many religious people, not least the likes of Sriram and AB on these boards. Now I don't think there is any evidence for this whatsoever, but that is surely their argument.

Now following on from this, were someone's consciousness to be able to communicate to others despite an irreversible cessation of biological processes then this would be 'after death' - some people think this can happen - I've seen no credible evidence for this. However if someone is resuscitated and those biological processes have not irreversibly ceased then there has been no death and whatever they may tell you cannot be an experience of death, because they were never dead.

Surely you can see the circularity in your last sentence.

As to Alan and Sriram you seem to have just repeated my point, and then ignored what it means. We are having the discussion with them, so you just using your circular definition gets us nowhere.

[Sriram]

But that's not what you believe if you are arguing for RED, since you are arguing the person is remembering sonething that you think is death?

What I am saying is that Consciousness can detach itself under different circumstances and people can remember that also. When people remember consciousness leaving the body during 'death' they can also remember. It is just an extreme situation. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Surely you can see the circularity in your last sentence.

There is a difference between an argument which is circular and a suggestion which is oxymoronic due to the definition of some key element. The point I am making is one of an oxymoronic kind, not a circular one - by definition you cannot talk to someone (who is using key biological processes to engage in that conversation) about their experiences of being dead, because if they possess those processes they aren't dead and weren't dead. It is oxymoronic, not circular.

As to Alan and Sriram you seem to have just repeated my point, and then ignored what it means. We are having the discussion with them, so you just using your circular definition gets us nowhere.

But using standard/orthodox definitions is important as otherwise you can simply redefine something for your own agenda. That's what those who use the term recall experience of death are doing and the reason they do this is to subtly (or not so subtly) lead others into a world where they accept there is 'something after death' to be recalled. Now, of course, there might be (there is no credible evidence I've seen for this) but if there were then that recall would need to be conveyed to us via mechanisms which do not involve those key biological processes which, definitionally, need to have irreversibly ceased for that person to have been dead.

[Nearly Sane]

There is a difference between an argument which is circular and a suggestion which is oxymoronic due to the definition of some key element. The point I am making is one of an oxymoronic kind, not a circular one - by definition you cannot talk to someone (who is using key biological processes to engage in that conversation) about their experiences of being dead, because if they possess those processes they aren't dead and weren't dead. It is oxymoronic, not circular.
But using standard/orthodox definitions is important as otherwise you can simply redefine something for your own agenda. That's what those who use the term recall experience of death are doing and the reason they do this is to subtly (or not so subtly) lead others into a world where they accept there is 'something after death' to be recalled. Now, of course, there might be (there is no credible evidence I've seen for this) but if there were then that recall would need to be conveyed to us via mechanisms which do not involve those key biological processes which, definitionally, need to have irreversibly ceased for that person to have been dead.

You're locked in a position of ignoring context, and there is no difference between oxymoronic and circular in the context you are using.

[ProfessorDavey]

... and there is no difference between oxymoronic and circular in the context you are using.

Yes there is.

A circular argument is where you claim that A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true. That isn't the same as saying the definition of x precludes y. So saying that definitionally a circle cannot be a triangle isn't a circular argument at all, but one that is based on definitions and therefore to say that a triangle can be a circle is oxymoronic.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes there is.

A circular argument is where you claim that A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true. That isn't the same as saying the definition of x precludes y. So saying that definitionally a circle cannot be a triangle isn't a circular argument at all, but one that is based on definitions and therefore to say that a triangle can be a circle is oxymoronic.

Which is fine if you are saying we are talking about what we are referring to as death in the context of a methodological naturalist approach such as medicine but since you aren't in this discussion, it becomes circular. That wad why I talked about context.

[ProfessorDavey]

You're locked in a position of ignoring context,

Nope - definitions aren't something that you can just shift for your own purpose 'cos of context'.

You cannot argue that I'm ignoring 'context' if I refuse to accept that definitionally a triangle can have 6 sides.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope - definitions aren't something that you can just shift for your own purpose 'cos of context'.

You cannot argue that I'm ignoring 'context' if I refuse to accept that definitionally that a triangle can have 6 sides.

It's not about shifting definition, it's about using a definition out of context.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's not about shifting definition, it's about using a definition out of context.

In what way is using the standard definition of death (used in medical and scientific research contexts amongst others) out of context within a discussion on the 'Science & Technology' section of this MB when discussing research around so-called near death (or recalled experience of death) experiences.

You might as well argue that using the standard definition of a triangle is out of context in a discussion of trigonometry.

Think you might want to slope off and give your head a tweak

[Nearly Sane]

In what way is using the standard definition of death (used in medical and scientific research contexts amongst others) out of context within a discussion on the 'Science & Technology' section of this MB when discussing research around so-called near death (or recalled experience of death) experiences.

You might as well argue that using the standard definition of a triangle is out of context in a discussion of trigonometry.

Think you might want to slope off and give your head a tweak

Because as already pointed out in discussion with Alan amd Sriram they aren't using that definition. That they too are using a definition out of context as Sriram does here just means you are talking past each other.

[ProfessorDavey]

The point in question here is evidence that conscious awareness can exist when there is no measurable brain activity.

But we don't know this, do we.

In the circumstances you suggest a person had normal physiological/neurological activity, suffered catastrophic (but not irreversible) physiological/neurological activity, which was then restored through medical intervention. That once they have had those activities restored they report certain phenomena tells us nothing about when during those series of processes those experiences/memories happened. They may be associated with the shutting down stage of the process or the 'rebooting' stage of the process, rather than the stage where there is no measurable brain activity.

And also measurable is a key word here - just because something isn't measurable doesn't mean there is nothing, merely that it is below the threshold that we can (currently) measure.

[ProfessorDavey]

Because as already pointed out in discussion with Alan amd Sriram they aren't using that definition. That they too are using a definition out of context as Sriram does here just means you are talking past each other.

Aren't they - although they seem to talk in a different language, my understanding is that they are talking about then possibility that consciousness can exist once physiological/neurological processes have ceased. Which is completely in line with the discussion/definition. 'Life after death' so to speak.

[Nearly Sane]

Aren't they - although they seem to talk in a different language, my understanding is that they are talking about then possibility that consciousness can exist once physiological/neurological processes have ceased. Which is completely in line with the discussion/definition. 'Life after death' so to speak.

Aren't they what?

[ProfessorDavey]

Aren't they what?

Talking about life after death - which I paraphrase as being the continuation of some kind of consciousness which isn't linked to the physiological/neurological processes of life (which irreversibly cease at death).

[ekim]

Perhaps the word 'life' needs to be defined.  As a noun it seems to suggest that there is an entity which exists in its own right e.g. in the saying attributed to Jesus - 'I am the Way the Truth and the Life'.  When one tries to examine it objectively, it appears to be more a process e.g. living forms rather than life forms.

[Nearly Sane]

Talking about life after death - which I paraphrase as being the continuation of some kind of consciousness which isn't linked to the physiological/neurological processes of life (which irreversibly cease at death).

They are talking about thar but they are also talking about the experiences being of death so they aren't looking at death in that sense as being irreversible. So they obviously aren't working with the same definition. Alan, apart from anything else, believes in resurrection.