Author Topic: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)  (Read 10162 times)

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17545
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #75 on: March 12, 2024, 01:05:18 PM »


That is just an assertion. You don't actually know that for a fact....!
If you want to assert that consciousness isn't a biological process then be my guest, provide some evidence. As far as I can see there is a huge body of evidence from neuroscience and neuropsychology linking consciousness to brain function. On the other hand there appears to be zero credible evidence to suggest that consciousness can exist outside of neurophysiological processes.

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8253
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #76 on: March 12, 2024, 02:41:03 PM »



A very interesting video on the subject. I think I have posted it before....but worth repeating... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDXbXhRlEn0&t=60s

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19455
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #77 on: March 12, 2024, 02:52:44 PM »
Sriram,

Quote
A very interesting video on the subject. I think I have posted it before....but worth repeating...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDXbXhRlEn0&t=60s

1. Notice the way he and his interviewer repeatedly elide near death experiences and actual death. Why do you think this is interesting?

2. Why do you continue to ignore the various corrections you're given here?
"Don't make me come down there."

God

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8253
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #78 on: March 13, 2024, 05:38:04 AM »
If you want to assert that consciousness isn't a biological process then be my guest, provide some evidence. As far as I can see there is a huge body of evidence from neuroscience and neuropsychology linking consciousness to brain function. On the other hand there appears to be zero credible evidence to suggest that consciousness can exist outside of neurophysiological processes.



Consciousness existing independent of the brain is a definite possibility and there is enough evidence in the form of recalled experiences of death. There are also other reasons to believe that besides RED's.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/mind-and-brain/

You have no definitive proof that consciousness is only brain generated.

torridon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10208
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #79 on: March 13, 2024, 06:59:32 AM »


Consciousness existing independent of the brain is a definite possibility and there is enough evidence in the form of recalled experiences of death. There are also other reasons to believe that besides RED's.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/mind-and-brain/

You have no definitive proof that consciousness is only brain generated.

We have no 'definitive proof' that consciousness is not only brain generated.  It is the principle of parsimony, it is only living things that exhibit signs of being conscious therefore until we find evidence to the contrary we conclude that consciousness is a biological process. Why would a bus stop be conscious ? It has no need of being conscious, and therefore no survival value to it.

Outrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14552
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #80 on: March 13, 2024, 09:57:40 AM »
Consciousness existing independent of the brain is a definite possibility

Absent of any evidence or investigation, arguably yes.

Quote
... and there is enough evidence in the form of recalled experiences of death.

As has been repeatedly explained, there is no 'recalled experience of death' - no-one who has died has come back to talk about it, because if they've come back they haven't died. There are people who have undergone significant biological trauma, in various ways, and there are patterns to their recounts of their experiences, yes: it's not clear, however, if these are indicative of some sort of clarity about notional non-corporeal elements to consciousness, or indicative of common patterns of neural activity in stressful conditions. The existence of accounts of similar experiences in different circumstances speaks against the 'proximity to non-corporeal consciousness' interpretation, but it's not absolutely definitive.

Quote
There are also other reasons to believe that besides RED's.


Here we go...

Quote
The brain did not create itself.

Why would that be a requirement? My body didn't create itself (well, actually, the body I have now was self-created, but the body I was born with was created by someone else... sort of...), but it's definitely my body, and you don't seem to be suggesting that there's a 'ghost' part out there somewhere which is necessary for my body to exist.

Quote
The brain does not function independently of the total human anatomy and physiology.

And given the evidence available, neither does my consciousness - that's a point in favour of the corporeal source of consciousness argument, not against it. The crux of the failure of this argument, so far as I can see, is in this: "...there has to be an agency independent of the system that decides its role in the system."

Why? Why does my consciousness have to come from somewhere else? If I turn on a light-bulb, the light doesn't come from somewhere else and become manifested by the bulb, it originates in the bulb. It's caused by other phenomena (electricity, energy changes in electrons etc.), but the light comes from the bulb. It's a result of prior conditions, but it emerges from that entirely physical structure - why is the pattern of behaviour that we identify as 'consciousness' different from that?

Quote
Our emotions are not generated by the brain.

As you already pointed out, our brains don't exist in isolation; that they are influence by our bodies is already accepted - that in no way undermines the notion of consciousness, it informs it. If consciousness were independent of the brain, or partially independent of the brain, we'd expect that emotional impact to be lessened, presumably.

Quote
We are not born with a complete and fully developed brain.

In the absence of any evident feedback mechanism, if our consciousness is informed from outside of the body, how would experience change it? Our consciousness would simply be? You're presumably considering that the 'soul' is, and the changes in our brain structure as a result of experience influence how that 'soul' is interpreted or manifested? That makes the soul less of an element of our consciousness and more some kind of power-source - an animating power, but not in any meaningful way a part of consciousnesss.

Quote
Even in day to day experience we can see that when we practice something our skills in those areas grow and develop... These instances show that the brain does not decide our abilities and skills, rather, our experiences and training decide how the brain should be internally connected and developed.

I can't lift 150 kg. I train, I build muscle, and now I can lift 150kg. Your theory is that this is because I have a ghost, and not because I've changed my physique? The brain is an organ, and as it is used it changes to accommodate that use; I learn things, and those things are now available to my consciousness because I learnt them. That displays EXACTLY that our brain decides our abilities - it also shows that if we want to change those abilities we have to change our brain, we have to train, we have to learn. Nothing in that precludes a corporeal source of consciousness - if there were non-corporeal source or influence on consciousness we'd expect to see instances of changes in consciousness without accompanying changes in brain activity. I'm curious to see if you have any evidence of that?

Quote
Usually, specific areas of the brain have specific fixed functions, such as language skills, abstract thinking, mathematics and so on.  This remains largely true under normal circumstances.

However, in recent times there have been some notable exceptions.  Some people who have been involved in major accidents or had severe brain infections or tumors, have had  significant parts of their brain removed.

If you can show examples of people manifesting these traits WITHOUT clear evidence of parts of the brain adapting to host them, that will be evidence for your non-corporeal consciousness theory - if every example you cite is this brain works differently but it's still a brain, you're reinforcing the brain being the seat of consciousness, not undermining it.

Quote
The process through which our consciousness actually experiences things is still not understood by neuroscientists. The issue of qualia and consciousness is still unresolved among neuroscientists and psychologists

Current science doesn't have a full explanation, therefore magic. Not even wrong.

Quote
Genetic memory has been proved in many cases where trans generational memory transfers have been identified. Epigenetic mechanisms have been found through which memories of experiences can be passed on through genes from one generation to the next.

What's the next step down from not even wrong? Not even wronger? Notter even wrong? Firstly, and most importantly, that's a misuse of 'epigenetic' that borders on criminal. 'Genetic memory' has in no way been proven - it's been alleged in a few cases, and thoroughly debunked in the majority of those. People 'remembering' past lives is at best fringe science, most of the time not even that, and is so far away from proven it's likely to be Trump's next presidential immunity claim - I have presidential immunity from before I was president because I remember one of my ancestors being president.

While epigenetic effects are a demonstrable phenomenon, and whilst they are considered to include elements that affect brain function, and therefore character traits, there is absolutely no credible evidence that they pass on 'memories' - I think you've watched 'Assassin's Creed' and mistakenly thought it was a documentary.

Quote
It was earlier thought that people who go into coma and remain in a vegetative state for several months and years (even decades), are in a state of unconsciousness and oblivion, because most of their brain functions had ceased.

However, it has now been found with very sophisticated brain scan techniques that such people are actually conscious and are even able to communicate indirectly.

This just undermines your claim that 'near death' experiences have to be the result of some external 'soul' which is predicated on the idea that brain function ceases - turns out it can diminish...

Quote
In rare cases, people have been born with virtually no brain at all but have been known to live productively almost like normal people.  In such cases, the fact that the person virtually had no brain, was not even known till a CT scan was taken for other reasons, many years later.

Whether you think the brain produces consciousness or the brain conducts consciousness from somewhere else, this (admitttedly spectacularly intriguing) fact doesn't speak for or against either theory - whether it's half a 'computer' or half an 'antenna' doesn't speak to one idea or the other.

Quote
Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) or Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) as it is now called, is a very common phenomenon in some countries.  Normally called ‘split personality’….this disorder involves a person having two or more personalities in the same body with every personality being very different from the other.

A few minor points before we address the argument: firstly, DID is not 'very common' anywhere; secondly, not all the personalitie in DID are very distinct, there is often a high degree of commonality between them, and the truly divergent characters are either exceedingly rare, or exist as the end-points of a spectrum of intermediate personalities. ("The average number of different personalities noted in such patients  is  said to be 16." - I'd be very interested to see where you got this figure from. Wikipedia's article on DID, for instance, cites that over half of cases present with fewer than 10 personalities, with the majority having fewer than 100).

The majority of DID cases are identified in mid- to late-childhood, with identification of symptoms typically having started between the ages of 5 and 10, which suggests this is in some way developmental - which implies a physical source given the lack of any apparent feedback mechanism to a non-corporeal consciousness element.

Quote
For example, it was found in a boy that during the presence of one particular alter personality, he developed an allergy to orange juice which did not happen when the other personalities were present. In some cases, skin rashes would appear spontaneously whenever one particular alter personality was dominant but would disappear automatically when the other alter personalities were dominant.

You cited, earlier, that the brain and the body are intrinsically interconnected, and yet it seems a surprise to you that as much as 'bodily' activity can affect 'brain output' is obvious, 'brain activity' can affect 'body output' is a miraculous? That some parts of our autonomous systems are controlled and/or influence by brain activity shouldn't really be a stretch: when we get scared we suddenly produce large quantities of adrenaline, but it's not our kidneys that are feeling scared.

Further, though, what's the part of DID that you think promotes a non-corporeal explanation for consciousness? Are you suggesting some people have multiple souls attached to them? Why would that only start after birth, after personality has started to develop, what are these wandering souls doing for the rest of the time? If that's not the explanation, why do multiple non-corporeal personalities make more sense than multiple brain-resident personalities when we can see the brain activity changes? Why do the differences in bodily behaviour (like your allergy example) mean that a non-corporeal source is more likely, given that it still has to change the brain activity on the way through - at best it does nothing to add to your claim.

Quote
Researchers have found that  psychosis (madness) can be shared by two or more people. This is called Folie a deux (French for ‘madness shared by two’). The psychosis can be shared by family members or even other people, called  folie en famille  and folie à plusieurs respectively.

Given that we've already established, above, that we can learn and change and that's in no way a validation of your claims, this is just a specific iteration of that failed general argument.

Which then brings us back to the NDE argument, which is fairly thoroughly countered in numerous different ways through this thread.

Quote
You have no definitive proof that consciousness is only brain generated.

True. However, we have strong evidence that conciousness and brain activity are at least heavily intertwined, and we have models of consciousness which work and don't require additional elements.

You have no strong evidence for any non-corporeal element of consciousness, no strong evidence for any brain activity which is not a result of other physical phenomena and a raft of misunderstanding, non-sequitur's, irrelevancies and pleas to tradition.

Science is rarely definitive, but I don't see mainstream science out looking for 'souls' that it can't find in the way that it was out looking for Higgs' Boson - it might, in the future, if we get surprised by current research finding something inexplicable, but that's not currently looking likely.

O.
Universes are forever, not just for creation...

New Atheism - because, apparently, there's a use-by date on unanswered questions.

Eminent Pedant, Interpreter of Heretical Writings, Unwarranted Harvester of Trite Nomenclature, Church of Debatable Saints

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32431
  • Blurb
    • Sincere Flattery: A blog about computing
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #81 on: March 13, 2024, 10:30:02 AM »

You have no definitive proof that consciousness is only brain generated.

Not this crap again.

It's amazing how many religious people are prepared to take the jump from "you can't absolutely rule out X" to "X MuSt Be TrUe" and hope we don't notice.

Actually, it's not amazing. It's the typical type of dishonest tactic used by people with no evidence to back up their arguments so why wouldn't you use it.
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may apply

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17545
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #82 on: March 13, 2024, 11:14:10 AM »
Not this crap again.

It's amazing how many religious people are prepared to take the jump from "you can't absolutely rule out X" to "X MuSt Be TrUe" and hope we don't notice.

Actually, it's not amazing. It's the typical type of dishonest tactic used by people with no evidence to back up their arguments so why wouldn't you use it.
Agreed - if someone wants to posit an idea the onus is on them to provide the evidence in support of that idea. The absence of evidence that something isn't the case does not provide evidence that it is.

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17545
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #83 on: March 13, 2024, 11:22:27 AM »


Consciousness existing independent of the brain is a definite possibility and there is enough evidence in the form of recalled experiences of death. There are also other reasons to believe that besides RED's.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/mind-and-brain/

You have no definitive proof that consciousness is only brain generated.
Over to you Sriram - if you want to propose that consciousness can exist independently of physiological and neurological activity, be my guest - provide the evidence as the onus of proof rests with you.

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8253
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #84 on: March 13, 2024, 01:35:57 PM »
Over to you Sriram - if you want to propose that consciousness can exist independently of physiological and neurological activity, be my guest - provide the evidence as the onus of proof rests with you.


Not necessary. As has been argued many times....the onus in not always on the person proposing a non material process!  Stating that material processes are enough to generate consciousness and mind and that all life is merely a biological process....in spite of lots of evidence to the contrary....all these are claims that require to be proved too!

You people think passing the buck will do the trick.

Currently there is no proof  that life is an entirely biological process. No proof that death is the cessation of that process. No proof that the mind is entirely generated by the brain. All these are mere assertions. 

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32431
  • Blurb
    • Sincere Flattery: A blog about computing
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #85 on: March 13, 2024, 02:03:00 PM »

Not necessary. As has been argued many times....the onus in not always on the person proposing a non material process!
You've done it again.

"Just occasionally, the onus is not on the person proposing a non material process"

Therefore (according to the religionist)

"A nOn MaTeRiAl PrOcEsS iS TrUe iN ThIs CaSe"

The onus is on you. We won't believe you as long as you keep making these claims without evidence.

Quote
  Stating that material processes are enough to generate consciousness and mind and that all life is merely a biological process....in spite of lots of evidence to the contrary....all these are claims that require to be proved too!
Bu there isn't lots of evidence to the contrary. All the evidence points to consciousness being part of biology.

Quote
You people think passing the buck will do the trick.
We know it doesn't which is why your trying it here is so unsuccessful.
Quote
Currently there is no proof  that life is an entirely biological process. No proof that death is the cessation of that process. No proof that the mind is entirely generated by the brain. All these are mere assertions.
To be pedantic, there is no proof about anything that happens in the real world, there is only evidence and the evidence is not on your side.
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may apply

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19455
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #86 on: March 13, 2024, 02:31:08 PM »
Sriram,

Quote
Consciousness existing independent of the brain is a definite possibility…

Your poor reasoning ability is letting you down again here. Leprechauns are a “definite possibility”. An orbiting teapot is a “definite possibility”. Any logically coherent truth claim is a "definite possibility". So what though? It’s a non-point.

Quote
… possibility and there is enough evidence in the form of recalled experiences of death.

There are no verifiable recalled experiences of death, and recalled experiences of episodes that typically happen prior to death are not evidence that there are.

Quote
There are also other reasons to believe that besides RED's.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/mind-and-brain/

Quoting your own logical incoherence and basic reasoning errors doesn’t help you here.

Quote
You have no definitive proof that consciousness is only brain generated.

You have no definitive proof that women give birth to babies…therefore you must accept my “evidence” that invisible storks bring them instead.

You fundamentally fail to grasp to grasp still that epistemological truth is probabilistic in character. Even if there is an objectively real, “out there” reality we have no basis to assume that our understanding of it necessarily maps to what is. The most we can do is to observe and to apply methods to our observations that give us provisional truths that are useful. There is no “definitive proof” for anything and just using that truism as a back to door to privilege any truth claim that happens to appeal to you is epistemically worthless.

Try at least to understand where you go wrong here – endlessly correcting you as you make the same mistakes over and over again is wearisome.

"Don't make me come down there."

God

Outrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14552
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #87 on: March 13, 2024, 02:48:31 PM »
Not necessary.

What you assert without basis can be rejected without argument. If you don't make a case, there is no case to dispute.

Quote
As has been argued many times....the onus in not always on the person proposing a non material process!

The detail of the claim isn't important to the concept that if you're the one making the claim the onus is on you to justify the claim or it can just be ignored.

Quote
Stating that material processes are enough to generate consciousness and mind and that all life is merely a biological process....in spite of lots of evidence to the contrary....all these are claims that require to be proved too!

What's being stated is that material processes could be enough to generate consciousness, and are strongly linked to consciousness. There is no evidence of something lacking in that explanation, although all the details are not yet fully understood. If you want to posit something else being involved, you need to justify that claim; a gap in the current understanding is not evidence for your magic claims, it's evidence of the need for further investigation.

Quote
You people think passing the buck will do the trick.

We don't have a buck to pass, it's still yours. You say magic, we say explain your working.

Quote
Currently there is no proof  that life is an entirely biological process.

Currently there is no evidence that life is at all a non-corporeal process. There is strong evidence that biology is at least part of life; there is no solid evidence that life has a non-corporeal component. That there is not absolute proof does not mean your unsupported assertion has any merit, let alone equal or more merit than the conventional explanation.

Quote
No proof that death is the cessation of that process.

The absence of dead people explaining their continued life is arguably weak evidence for it. The absence of dead people explaining their continued existence leaves you with still no supporting evidence for your claim.

Quote
No proof that the mind is entirely generated by the brain.

There is strong evidence the brain activity and consciousness are connected. There is no evidence for any other elements involved.

Quote
All these are mere assertions.

No, they are conclusions from the available evidence.

There are two claims here - one is provisional and has evidence in support, whilst the other has no evidence. Rather than try to make a case, you keep trying to squeeze your magic claims into gaps in the detail of current understanding. I posted a point-by-point rebuttal of your thinking, above, and you've ignored it in favour of trying to ignore the evidence and pretend that there are just two spitballed ideas thrown into the ring.

O.
Universes are forever, not just for creation...

New Atheism - because, apparently, there's a use-by date on unanswered questions.

Eminent Pedant, Interpreter of Heretical Writings, Unwarranted Harvester of Trite Nomenclature, Church of Debatable Saints

Enki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3870
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #88 on: March 13, 2024, 03:03:04 PM »

Not necessary. As has been argued many times....the onus in not always on the person proposing a non material process!  Stating that material processes are enough to generate consciousness and mind and that all life is merely a biological process....in spite of lots of evidence to the contrary....all these are claims that require to be proved too!

You have not produced any solid evidence to the contrary though(anecdotal evidence doesn't count).

Quote
You people think passing the buck will do the trick.

When you suggest ideas that do not seem to be borne out by rational explanation, what on earth is wrong in asking you for the evidence that substantiates your ideas? Evidence that, so far, you don't seem able to give!

Quote
Currently there is no proof  that life is an entirely biological process. No proof that death is the cessation of that process. No proof that the mind is entirely generated by the brain. All these are mere assertions.

Of course there is no proof, but there is plenty of evidence that points towards the idea that the brain and the mind are inextricably linked, and there seems to be no evidence that the mind can exist outwith the brain. Hence the rational conditional conclusion is that the mind is a product of the brain.

In contrast your blog adds nothing in the way of evidence to support your contentions.
Sometimes I wish my first word was 'quote,' so that on my death bed, my last words could be 'end quote.'
Steven Wright

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17545
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #89 on: March 13, 2024, 03:58:25 PM »
Not necessary. As has been argued many times....the onus in not always on the person proposing a non material process!
Nope - the onus is on the proposer of a proposition to justify that proposition with evidence - it matters not whether the claim is material or not. The exceptions would be when the assertion is merely a matter of subjective opinion - I like Mozart - but that isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about factual objective claims - in your case that human consciousness can exist independently of biological processes. If that's your claim, the onus is on you to justify it with evidence.

torridon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10208
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #90 on: March 13, 2024, 07:56:02 PM »

Currently there is no proof  that life is an entirely biological process. No proof that death is the cessation of that process. No proof that the mind is entirely generated by the brain. All these are mere assertions.

None of the above sentences are correct, you have all your logic backwards, which is both misleading and disingenuous.

"Currently there is no proof  that life is an entirely biological process." Proof is a concept in maths or logic, not science. That life is a biological phenomenon is both definitional and a matter of observation.  As far as we know it is only living things that exhibit metabolism or respiration or reproduction which are the markers of living things.  How many lamp posts have been observed metabolising ?

"No proof that death is the cessation of that process." Again, proof is irrelevant.  That death is the cessation of the life of an organism is simply definitional

"No proof that the mind is entirely generated by the brain". Proof, again, is irrelevant.  Science values evidence and all the evidence we have points to mind and brain being the same phenomenon, just viewed from different aspects, one subjective, the other objective.

Your claims are merely fantastical assertions without any evidence.  Up to you to provide compelling evidence for them

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8253
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #91 on: March 15, 2024, 06:31:11 AM »

Death is the exiting of  life or Consciousness from the body.....could also be a correct definition. RED's are evidence that consciousness exits the body during the process of death. There is no evidence that consciousness ceases to exist after death.

torridon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10208
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #92 on: March 15, 2024, 07:25:09 AM »
Death is the exiting of  life or Consciousness from the body.....could also be a correct definition. RED's are evidence that consciousness exits the body during the process of death. There is no evidence that consciousness ceases to exist after death.

Consciousness is a process, not a thing. 50 mg of propofol would be sufficient to stop it happening.  A sudden blow to the head would also suffice.  After such interventions, consciousness may restart after a while, but not after irreversible death.

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8253
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #93 on: March 15, 2024, 08:39:04 AM »

Take the analogy of the computer system. The hardware is the body/brain, software in the mind, the user is the soul/consciousness. If there is a problem with the hardware or software the screen will go blank. Does not mean that you will cease to exist.

Outrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14552
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #94 on: March 15, 2024, 08:57:15 AM »
Death is the exiting of  life or Consciousness from the body.....could also be a correct definition.

It's not about 'correct', it's about current usage. Convention, in this day and age, has a particular meaning for the word 'death', and if you subborn it to mean something else then, in the short term at least, you're likely to be misinterpreted.

Quote
RED's are evidence that consciousness exits the body during the process of death.

On first inspection, yes. Further investigation showing that this type of experience is not solely related to those circumstances undermines that hypothesis. Examination of the detail also shows that the experiences reported are culturally tailored, further undermining the idea that this is some sort of universal 'natural' effect.

Quote
There is no evidence that consciousness ceases to exist after death.

Every single reliable measure of consciousness that we have available to us ceases upon death. That is evidence, if not especially strong - it's as strong as the self-reported 'near death experiences' of a small portion of the people who undergo significantly traumatic events is evidence for non-corporeal consciousness.

Regardless of that, the lack of absolute proof that consciousness is tied to our physical bodies is not in any way evidence for a non-corporeal conclusion, it's evidence for further study being required.

O.
Universes are forever, not just for creation...

New Atheism - because, apparently, there's a use-by date on unanswered questions.

Eminent Pedant, Interpreter of Heretical Writings, Unwarranted Harvester of Trite Nomenclature, Church of Debatable Saints

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8253
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #95 on: March 15, 2024, 09:16:36 AM »

'Regardless of that, the lack of absolute proof that consciousness is tied to our physical bodies is not in any way evidence for a non-corporeal conclusion, it's evidence for further study being required'.

I like that open mind. Yes...further study is required. But further study requires an open mind (no....our brains will not fall out as Dawkins fears) and a certain positive premise is to be adopted which will enable positive outcomes. The premise with which we start a study matters a lot on the direction the research will take.

Outrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14552
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #96 on: March 15, 2024, 09:40:20 AM »
But further study requires an open mind (no....our brains will not fall out as Dawkins fears) and a certain positive premise is to be adopted which will enable positive outcomes. The premise with which we start a study matters a lot on the direction the research will take.

By premise, do you mean 'hypothesis'? That's fine, put forward your hypothesis by all means, but to elevate a premise from mere guesswork to an hypothesis requires that it somehow be testable. You have to have not just a guess, but a mechanism (even a notional one) by which your hypothesis can be validated or refuted. So far as I can see you don't have that. You have no mechanism by which this non-corporeal element of consciousness can be shown to interact with the physical, no way of establishing that it exists beyond personal conviction of some people's subjective experiences during extreme trauma.

That's not a reliable mechanism for determining the validity of the claim - I could shamelessly steal someone else's idea and suggest that we're conscious because Leprechauns were throwing their intangible rainbow gold at us the evidentiary support for that claim would be absolutely the same. Instinctively I feel that's an even more outlandish suggestion (although not by much) but I have no factual basis to support that feeling, just as I have no factual basis for supporting either contention at all.

I do have a strong evidentiary basis for thinking that consciousness and the brain are intrinsically linked - which, so far as I can tell, you agree with - but I don't see any intrinsic problem with accepting the notion that we don't NEED anything else in the equation to make it work. Why do we need something more than brain activity to account for consciousness?

O.
Universes are forever, not just for creation...

New Atheism - because, apparently, there's a use-by date on unanswered questions.

Eminent Pedant, Interpreter of Heretical Writings, Unwarranted Harvester of Trite Nomenclature, Church of Debatable Saints

ekim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5811
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #97 on: March 15, 2024, 10:02:54 AM »
Take the analogy of the computer system. The hardware is the body/brain, software in the mind, the user is the soul/consciousness. If there is a problem with the hardware or software the screen will go blank. Does not mean that you will cease to exist.
The problem you have with that analogy is that it objectifies the nouns 'user, soul, consciousness' and this invites others to ask you to demonstrate its existence e.g. extract some of it from yourself and inject it into a dead mouse and see if the mouse exhibits signs of conscious life.

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32431
  • Blurb
    • Sincere Flattery: A blog about computing
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #98 on: March 15, 2024, 10:52:16 AM »
'Regardless of that, the lack of absolute proof that consciousness is tied to our physical bodies is not in any way evidence for a non-corporeal conclusion, it's evidence for further study being required'.

This is the real world. There is no such thing as absolute proof.

All the evidence we have (which is to say things not including anecdotes  believed by people who are frightened of ceasing to exist) points to consciousness ceasing when the brain ceases to function. There's no reason whatsoever to believe it continues after the brain stops. None.

This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may apply

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19455
Re: Recalled Experience of Death (RED)
« Reply #99 on: March 15, 2024, 11:38:55 AM »
Sriram,

Quote
Death is the exiting of  life or Consciousness from the body.....could also be a correct definition.

Rainbows are put there by leprechauns could also be the correct definition. Yet again: any truth claim that’s logically coherent could be true. Your problem though remains to find a path from a could be to a likely is. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Quote
RED's are evidence that consciousness exits the body during the process of death.

Rainbows are evidence for leprechauns. You can’t just assert a phenomenon to be evidence for your subjective opinion about its cause. 

Quote
There is no evidence that consciousness ceases to exist after death.

Oh dear:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot



Quote
Take the analogy of the computer system. The hardware is the body/brain, software in the mind, the user is the soul/consciousness. If there is a problem with the hardware or software the screen will go blank. Does not mean that you will cease to exist.

Depends what you mean by “you” – theoretically at least you could remove someone’s brain and keep all their bodily functions going with machines. Does that mean that person has ceased to exist?

In any case though, it’s a false analogy – for it to work you’d need the computer to be smashed up and the software somehow to persist in the ether.   
"Don't make me come down there."

God