Recalled Experience of Death (RED)

[Outrider]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/understanding-grief/202311/terminal-lucidity-and-the-near-death-experience

********

An NDE occurs when a person is close to death or pronounced dead. It is often triggered by a medical trauma such as a car accident, heart attack, etc. Typically, there is an out-of-body experience: The individual viewing themselves from above, traveling through a tunnel, seeing vivid imagery, encountering deceased family members, and bright lights, and perhaps perceiving angelic-like beings. The person is often told that it is not their time to die and returns to life. Terminal lucidity occurs more often when someone who is close to death and has been uncommunicative and unresponsive—as in the late stages of dementia—becomes alert, lucid, and verbal at the end of their life. It is as though the old self has returned after all have assumed the “self” has been destroyed. Sadly, it is followed closely by death.

They go against everything we know so far about death and dying, and yet these events are well documented. It seems that initially when the near-death experiences were brought to the public’s attention, they were dismissed as delusions, wishful thinking, or simply lies. Professionals did not deem them worthy of research and criticized those who did. Today, NDEs are more widely accepted as phenomena that can occur when someone is dying. With increased public and professional acceptance, people are more willing to share their experiences without fear of ridicule. Recognition of terminal lucidity is still in its early stages;

In exploring these end-of-life experiences, many questions arise: Is the mind separate from the brain? Where was the former self during the time that the person was “away?" Was it hibernating or preserved somewhere? Do changes in neurochemical transmitters trigger the experience? What implications does this have for the treatment of Alzheimer's or dementia? Do both TL and NDE suggest that there may be more to us than our biological self? What can we learn from these experiences about consciousness?

*********

None of that adds anything new. There are believers out there, there is a degree of commonality amongst the experiences of those undergoing significant physical trauma (although it doesn't balance that with the fact that similar experiences can be achieved by other means).

It doesn't answer the question, though: if you want to posit a non-corporeal source for consciousness, how do you propose to demonstrate that? How would that manifest differently from an entirely corporeal consciousness?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

An NDE occurs when a person is close to death or pronounced dead…

So not necessarily actually dead then? 

In exploring these end-of-life experiences,…

But not post-life experiences right?

Do you have anything to suggest that the experiences the article describes also happen after people are actually dead?

If not – and we know you haven’t – what point do you think you’re attempting to make?   

[Sriram]

I don't know what you people expect. A complete, detailed, comprehensive and conclusive understanding of all things regarding consciousness, mind, brain, death etc.? 

I have only told you my understanding of why the idea of consciousness being separate from the brain does not conflict with brain problems leading to cognitive impairment.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't know what you people expect. A complete, detailed, comprehensive and conclusive understanding of all things regarding consciousness, mind, brain, death etc.? 

I have only told you my understanding of why the idea of consciousness being separate from the brain does not conflict with brain problems leading to cognitive impairment.

And I've only pointed out the problems that I see in your understanding. I didn't any for any 'complete, detailed, comprehensive and conclusive understanding of all things regarding consciousness, mind, brain, death etc.'

[Sriram]

Yes...there are incomplete aspects of the phenomenon. Lots to be understood still. It is a very complex subject.

But there are  reasons to believe that consciousness is different from the brain. The idea is not as fantastic as you people make it out to be.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes...there are incomplete aspects of the phenomenon. Lots to be understood still. It is a very complex subject.

But there are  reasons to believe that consciousness is different from the brain. The idea is not as fantastic as you people make it out to be.

I don't think anyone has said the brain is consciousness so you've misphrased that. Rather that consciousness is a function of the brain.

Your position is that there is a conscious entity seperate from the brain. I've not rejected your 'evidence' because the idea itself is 'fantastic' but because it doesn't appear to be evidence for the claim.

[Outrider]

I don't know what you people expect.

I'm not sure why, we've explained often enough - apart from your own personal incredulity regarding a purely physical origin for consciousness, on what basis do you make the claim that consciousness is 'prompted' by some non-corporeal external factor acting upon our physical bodies.

A complete, detailed, comprehensive and conclusive understanding of all things regarding consciousness, mind, brain, death etc.? 

If you've got one, yes please. However, like the rest of us I suspect that you don't, so on that basis a rationale behind the formulation that you do have.

I have only told you my understanding of why the idea of consciousness being separate from the brain does not conflict with brain problems leading to cognitive impairment.

We see the same phenomena that you do, and yet we don't feel the need to try to crowbar 'souls' into the equation. You've not explained WHY you think consciousness can't be physical, you've offered no explanation for why you think something of consciousness MUST be non-corporeal, and yet you persist with the claim when people ask you 'why?'

O.

[torridon]

It is obviously more complicated than that. 

Consciousness exists independently of the body/brain but it projects itself into the Personality through the mind. That is why when the Personalty (body) gets damaged the mind also gets affected. The mind incidentally, is different from consciousness.   

Consciousness is a part of the functioning of mind.  A very small fraction of total mind functioning is conscious. 

Your first two sentences are what is known as 'gobbldeygook', I believe is the correct term.

[Sriram]

I have presented the views of Sam Parnia and the RED phenomenon. I have also linked about the many reasons to believe that the mind is different from the brain. I have also linked videos of prominent neuroscientists expressing their views about why consciousness cannot be just neural activity.

Your mental programming just does not allow you to see the reality that is quite clear to many others.

The only thing that is left for you people  is to take up yoga and meditations and look into your own self and subjective nature and see the reality for yourselves on a first person basis. 

I however know that is not going to happen. 

[jeremyp]

I don't know what you people expect. A complete, detailed, comprehensive and conclusive understanding of all things regarding consciousness, mind, brain, death etc.? 

Just some evidence for your dualism. Nothing more.

Actually, we don't expect even that because we know that you will never provide it. If you could, you would have done it already.

I have only told you my understanding of why the idea of consciousness being separate from the brain does not conflict with brain problems leading to cognitive impairment.

You haven't yet explained what dementia is with regard to that model.

[jeremyp]

I have presented the views of Sam Parnia and the RED phenomenon.

And everybody pointed out the flaw in thinking that NDE's demonstrate a separate soul independent of the brain.

I have also linked about the many reasons to believe that the mind is different from the brain.

I don't think anybody would disagree that the mind and the brain are not identical. What you have failed to do is give us a reason why the mind can't be seen as an emergent property of the brain. This seems to be evident from the fact that it goes away when the brain dies or is altered when the brain is damaged or subjected to certain drugs.

I have also linked videos of prominent neuroscientists expressing their views about why consciousness cannot be just neural activity.

Really? I don't believe that. I think you misunderstand what they are saying.

Your mental programming just does not allow you to see the reality that is quite clear to many others.

Your mental programming has turned you into a credulous fool.

Yes that's an insult, but so is what you say about us.

[Enki]

I have presented the views of Sam Parnia and the RED phenomenon. I have also linked about the many reasons to believe that the mind is different from the brain. I have also linked videos of prominent neuroscientists expressing their views about why consciousness cannot be just neural activity.

Your mental programming just does not allow you to see the reality that is quite clear to many others.

The only thing that is left for you people  is to take up yoga and meditations and look into your own self and subjective nature and see the reality for yourselves on a first person basis. 

I however know that is not going to happen.

I'm with Jeremy here. I think you take a dishonest approach. I have never said that the brain is the same as the mind. I have always suggested that the mind is the result of the workings of the brain. I have also drawn attention to Sam Parnia's Aware studies which did not provide any evidence that NDEs and OBEs are a sign that there is life after death, except in one OBE auditory case where Parnia agreed that confabulation could not be ruled out.

The rest is simply you expressing your one sided point of view and criticising others for not accepting what you say. Unfortunately for you, on this forum, most people aren't going to easily accept your ideas without strong evidence to back up your ideas. Your problem seems to be that you have no such evidence and your alternative is simply to berate 'you people' as not being willing to follow your techniques. Even that is not accurate though as I'm sure many of us do look into our own subjective natures. Indeed, that is one reason why I, for one, demand as objective evidence as possible to inform my views on a variety of subjects. Perhaps you should look at your own subjective nature, Sriram. It could be that your inbuilt biases are not allowing your mind to be as open as it should be.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I have presented the views of Sam Parnia and the RED phenomenon. I have also linked about the many reasons to believe that the mind is different from the brain. I have also linked videos of prominent neuroscientists expressing their views about why consciousness cannot be just neural activity.

No, you’ve linked variously to fringe figures, to peddlers of pseudo-science and to people speculating about possible phenomena. You’ve studiously avoided mainstream science, evidence-based conclusions and testable hypotheses.

Moreover, no-one says that the mind isn’t different from the brain – rather that the mind is likely to be an emergent property of functioning brains, an explanation that relies on fewer assumptions than a supposed, “out there” consciousness floating about the place that decides somehow to “project” itself onto selected parts of the brain.       

Your mental programming just does not allow you to see the reality that is quite clear to many others.

The only “mental programming” you’re encountering is the request for some sound reasoning and evidence, rather than just accepting at face value your various badly argued, evidence-free claims and assertions.

The "mental programming" you’re bringing to the table is a suite of a priori woo beliefs that you cannot countenance being wrong, so you’re compelled to reject any falsifications of them you’re given by resorting to avoidance, ad homs (“you people” etc) and various logical fallacies.       

The only thing that is left for you people  is to take up yoga and meditations and look into your own self and subjective nature and see the reality for yourselves on a first person basis.

So rely on subjective truths rather than objective ones just as you have you mean. What’s odd to me about the way you privilege your unqualified opinions over facts is that, presumably, in other aspects of your life objective verification is important to you. You wouldn’t for example not wear your crash helmet when riding your motor bike on the assurance from me that magic fairies will protect you if you have a crash (perhaps supported by a video of a fringe mystic propounding fairyism) yet you expect us to accept your claims on the same basis.     

I however know that is not going to happen.

You could abandon the multiple logical fallacies on which your claims rely and instead try at least to find some sound reasoning to justify your beliefs. I however know that is not going to happen.   

[ProfessorDavey]

I have presented the views of Sam Parnia and the RED phenomenon. I have also linked about the many reasons to believe that the mind is different from the brain. I have also linked videos of prominent neuroscientists expressing their views about why consciousness cannot be just neural activity.

But the 'views' of individuals aren't useful - all sorts of individuals have all sorts of views. What is relevant is evidence - some people's views are clearly based on evidence and therefore carry far more weight than others whose views are devoid of supporting evidence. Bottom line - it is the evidence, not the subjective views of individuals, that it important.

[Sriram]

But the 'views' of individuals aren't useful - all sorts of individuals have all sorts of views. What is relevant is evidence - some people's views are clearly based on evidence and therefore carry far more weight than others whose views are devoid of supporting evidence. Bottom line - it is the evidence, not the subjective views of individuals, that it important.

How can the views of prominent neuroscientists not matter?!  They are professionals in the field and are familiar with their subject, certainly much more than lay people like yourselves.

These are areas where clear and definite ideas are not possible. I am sure they know what evidence is and how much they should speculate.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

How can the views of prominent neuroscientists not matter?!  They are professionals in the field and are familiar with their subject, certainly much more than lay people like yourselves.

Why are you lying about this? He didn't say that peoples' views don't matter - he said that peoples' views that aren't supported by evidence don't matter.   

These are areas where clear and definite ideas are not possible. I am sure they know what evidence is and how much they should speculate.

If there's evidence then it can be examined and tested; if there's just speculation though, then the claims of fact you make that you justify with those speculations are themselves also therefore just speculations.

This shouldn't be difficult to understand, even for someone whose grasp of reason is as tenuous as yours.   

[Enki]

How can the views of prominent neuroscientists not matter?!  They are professionals in the field and are familiar with their subject, certainly much more than lay people like yourselves.

These are areas where clear and definite ideas are not possible. I am sure they know what evidence is and how much they should speculate.

Surely then you should take on board the utterances and evidence of prominent neuroscientists like Kevin Nelson, a Professor of Neuroscience or do you only select out anyone who supports your point of view?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6170042/

[Outrider]

I have presented the views of Sam Parnia and the RED phenomenon.

And we've reviewed it, and it's unconvincing at best.

I have also linked about the many reasons to believe that the mind is different from the brain.

No, you've explained some things about how that would work if it were the case, but I've not seen anything that qualifies as a reason why anyone should think that it is the case.

I have also linked videos of prominent neuroscientists expressing their views about why consciousness cannot be just neural activity.

And yet the very nature of neuroscience presumes that it is; there may well be some neuroscientists who, when they take off their lab-coats, believe in souls, but that's not part of their work. And it's not a logical conclusion, or a conclusion from the evidence, that's at all widely accepted in the field of neuroscience.

Your mental programming just does not allow you to see the reality that is quite clear to many others.

Or, conversely, your mental programming has integrated this delusion, and you keep attempting to wedge it into phenomena that don't need it. See, I can throw an ad hominem in place of an argument, too.

The only thing that is left for you people  is to take up yoga and meditations and look into your own self and subjective nature and see the reality for yourselves on a first person basis.

Ah, personal revelation - another ad hominem, cloaked in mystic bullshit. "You'd understand if only you'd meditate properly, it's a personal failing on your part'.  If you can't explain it, if you can't understand it without - by your own admission - entering some sort of altered mental state, maybe it's not real.

And I meditate fine, thank you - wood-turning videos on YouTube are disturbingly calming for me.

I however know that is not going to happen.

You don't 'know', but you strongly suspect, just as I strongly suspect that you'll cling to this belief in souls in the absolute absence of any reason to do so.

O.

[Sriram]

Well...You guys can keep banging the table for evidence all you want but if you can't see it, no one can help you. As I have said here many times, evidence can be all around us but we may not see it. It depends on ones programming and mental make up.

The evidence for consciousness being independent of the body and brain is available all around us and within us. Even many scientists have spoken about it as I have mentioned above. But then...like light 'doesn't exist' for a blind man, such matters just don't seem to make a dent in your awareness and understanding.

It is also quite funny the way you guys position yourselves as expert judges on the work and views of professional scientists.... just because many of them are coming out of rigid materialism/physicalism! 
 

[torridon]

The evidence for consciousness being independent of the body and brain is available all around us and within us. Even many scientists have spoken about it as I have mentioned above. But then...like light 'doesn't exist' for a blind man, such matters just don't seem to make a dent in your awareness and understanding.

There isn't currently any evidence for consciousness being independant of minds or of it being a fundamental property of matter.  What such claims are, is a philosophical speculation that has attracted interest as a route to solving the hard problem of consciousness.  But evidence, no, there is not even any definition of what to look for in order to detect it.  How would we measure the level of consciousness of an electron if we don't know what to look for.

[jeremyp]

Well...You guys can keep banging the table for evidence all you want but if you can't see it, no one can help you.

Why do you mean? If there's no evidence for a phenomenon that we re sceptical about, why do we need help. Isn't it the people who refuse to accept that the evidence points to them being wrong who are in need of help.

That's you, by the way.

As I have said here many times, evidence can be all around us but we may not see it. It depends on ones programming and mental make up.

Your programming seems to need some adjustment.

The evidence for consciousness being independent of the body and brain is available all around us and within us.

You keep saying that but you can't actually provide any.

It is also quite funny the way you guys position yourselves as expert judges on the work and views of professional scientists.... just because many of them are coming out of rigid materialism/physicalism! 

And what makes you think you are an expert?

Edit: one of us is a professional scientist.

[Outrider]

Well...You guys can keep banging the table for evidence all you want but if you can't see it, no one can help you.

Well, if you guys keep banging on about unsubstantiated woo no-one can help you.

As I have said here many times, evidence can be all around us but we may not see it. It depends on ones programming and mental make up.

As has become clear, if you're not picky about the standards of 'evidence' you can find evidence for any nonsense you like in the absence of any evidence at all. It just needs the right indoctrination and mental failures.

The evidence for consciousness being independent of the body and brain is available all around us and within us.

If you aren't worried about validity and just accept claims based on the sincerity of the claimant, there are hundreds of London Bridges for sale at the right price.

Even many scientists have spoken about it as I have mentioned above.

Even smart people can be stupid sometimes.

But then...like light 'doesn't exist' for a blind man, such matters just don't seem to make a dent in your awareness and understanding.

Blind Non-believing people are stupid, and don't realise that they're blind non-believing, that vision in other people souls can be demonstrated to be a thing, and that we have machinery to detect light souls, predictions about how light souls will be emitted in particular circumstances which have been tested and proven to be true...

It is also quite funny the way you guys position yourselves as expert judges on the work and views of professional scientists.... just because many of them are coming out of rigid materialism/physicalism! 

It's also funny the way you just accept any old horseshit and the position yourself as an expert judge on the work of science when it's readily apparent you don't really grasp how science works.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Well...You guys can keep banging the table for evidence all you want…

Just asking for evidence isn’t banging the table, and why wouldn’t someone ask for evidence to justify an otherwise unqualified truth claim such as those you make here?

…but if you can't see it, no one can help you.

If you can’t provide it, no-one can help you.

As I have said here many times, evidence can be all around us but we may not see it.

That much at least is true, but your problem remains to find a route from a “may be” to an “is”.

It depends on ones programming and mental make up.

Not really. You for example I presume would demand evidence that meets various objective criteria for my claims about leprechauns before you accepted them, yet you expect others to abandon exactly the same objective evidential criteria in respect of the claims you make. Why the blatant and egregious double standard? 

The evidence for consciousness being independent of the body and brain is available all around us and within us.

Where?

Even many scientists have spoken about it as I have mentioned above.

Stop lying. Some scientists have speculated about it, but none that I know of have provided testable evidence for it, had their findings peer reviewed and published, been cited by other researchers etc.

But then...like light 'doesn't exist' for a blind man, such matters just don't seem to make a dent in your awareness and understanding.

That false analogy has been detonated without rebuttal here multiple times in the past. Why on earth have you returned to the same mistake now?

It is also quite funny the way you guys position yourselves as expert judges on the work and views of professional scientists.... just because many of them are coming out of rigid materialism/physicalism!   

You really struggle with the difference between the subjective and the objective don’t you. What “you guys” may or may not position ourselves as being is irrelevant – what’s relevant is just the arguments we make. Your efforts here and on your blog are littered with basic mistakes in reasoning, yet rather than ever address the explanations you’re given for why they’re mistakes you just ignore the problem, deflect, try ad homs etc and then return to exactly the same mistakes over and over again. This wilful ignorance does you no credit here.   

[Sriram]

A nice (9 minute) video of David Eagleman (neuroscientist). Listen to his Kalahari tribal analogy....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kLhFIeIiVs

[Outrider]

A nice (9 minute) video of David Eagleman (neuroscientist). Listen to his Kalahari tribal analogy....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kLhFIeIiVs

He's not advocating the case, which is important, but what he says boils down to the fact that non-material explanations exist because the material explanation isn't absolutely complete. Explicitly he's pointing out that we don't have any evidence for it - the 'Kalahari' analogy relies on explicit ignorance from the tribesman.

If you want that radio analogy to be accepted, you need to demonstrate the radio waves, or the encryption, or the signal being received by the receiver in the brain, or the transmitter... you have none of it, you just a have a gap in an otherwise comprehensively more robust explanation into which you're inserting ancient superstition.

O.