Merged A new argument pro Near Death Experiences

"Defenders of the mind-brain production theory might object that even in the presence
of a flat-lined EEG there still could be undetected brain activity going on; current
scalp-EEG technology detects only activity common to large populations of neurons,
mainly in the cerebral cortex. However, the issue is not whether there is brain activity
of any kind whatsoever, but whether there is brain activity of the specific form agreed
upon by contemporary neuroscientists as the necessary condition of conscious
experience. Activity of this form is eminently detectable by current EEG technology,
and it is abolished either by general anesthesia or by cardiac arrest.
In cardiac arrest, even neuronal action-potentials, the ultimate physical basis for
coordination of neural activity between widely separated brain regions, are rapidly
abolished (Kelly et al., 2007). Moreover, cells in the hippocampus, the region thought
to be essential for memory formation, are especially vulnerable to the effects of anoxia
(Vriens et al., 1996). In short, it is not credible to suppose that NDEs occurring under
conditions of general anesthesia, let alone cardiac arrest, can be accounted for in terms
of some hypothetical residual capacity of the brain to process and store complex
information under those conditions"

(Bruce Greyson)
 
Jodie said:
Define consciousness and then tell me why we should assume that it should be tied to one's body.
Click to expand...

The first is difficult, the second is easy: brain damage can completely alter the personality of the afflicted person.
 
Jodie said:
Define consciousness and then tell me why we should assume that it should be tied to one's body.
Click to expand...

The consciousness Maartenn100 is talking about, for instance here, the consciousness which can not be measured or seen by apparatus or be certain about by other minds, according to Maartenn100.

The consciousness of which Maartenn100 does not want to or can not explain how he thinks he knows it exists outside of himself.

That consciousness.
 
Maartenn100 said:
"A second defense of the mind-brain production theory for NDEs is to suggest that these experiences do not occur during the actual episodes of brain insult, but before or just after the insult, when the brain is more or less functional (Augustine, 2007; Rodabaugh, 1985).
However, unconsciousness produced by cardiac arrest characteristically leaves patients amnesic and confused for events immediately preceding and following these episodes (Aminoff et al., 1988; Parnia & Fenwick, 2002; van Lommel et al., 2001).
Furthermore, a substantial number of NDEs contain apparent time "anchors" in the form of verifiable reports of events occurring during the period of insult itself. For example, a cardiac-arrest victim described by van Lommel et al. (2001) had been discovered lying in a meadow 30 minutes or more prior to his arrival at the emergency room, comatose and cyanotic, and yet days later, having recovered, he was able to describe accurately various circumstances occurring in conjunction with the ensuing resuscitation procedures in the hospital.

(Bruce Greyson)
Click to expand...
I fail to see why apparent confusion preceding or following and NDE means that a memory cannot be formed during that period.

Likewise, it seems irrelevant that a person has been lying in a meadow prior to the arrival at the emergency room. It is more relevant that he has was able to describe some of the resuscitation procedures, but as with all NDEs, it can just as well be a question of van Lommel et al. hearing what they want to hear, and not what the patient actually said.

I note that van Lommel has been criticised extensively for his uncritical acceptance of any thing that might point to the survival of consciousness.

Here is a conclusion of one critical review by Jason Braithwaite PhD (Near death experiences: The dying brain): "The logical and factual mistakes in the interpretation of the study seem common to this field of research and show no sign of dissipating."
 
Daylightstar said:
The consciousness Maartenn100 is talking about, for instance here, the consciousness which can not be measured or seen by apparatus or be certain about by other minds, according to Maartenn100.

That consciousness.
Click to expand...

That's wrong. It's the current consensus among sceptics: they call it 'the problem of other minds'. It's not my concept.

"The problem of other minds has traditionally been regarded as an epistemological challenge raised by the skeptic."
(Wikipedia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds


In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, they conclude:

"7. Conclusion
This article has been almost entirely concerned with the epistemological problem of other minds. What generates the problem has been carefully delineated. The standard solutions have been outlined and the various critical responses discussed. What is clear is that there does not seem to be what might be called a received solution to the problem. It has been argued that the problem cannot be removed, nor can it be made easier to solve, by embracing any particular philosophy of mind."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/
 
Last edited:
Jodie said:
Define consciousness and then tell me why we should assume that it should be tied to one's body.
Click to expand...


They cannot define it. Their scientific tools are worthless when it comes to a phenomenon like consciousness.
 
Maartenn100 said:
"The problem of other minds has traditionally been regarded as an epistemological challenge raised by the skeptic."
(Wikipedia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds


In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, they conclude:

"7. Conclusion
This article has been almost entirely concerned with the epistemological problem of other minds. What generates the problem has been carefully delineated. The standard solutions have been outlined and the various critical responses discussed. What is clear is that there does not seem to be what might be called a received solution to the problem. It has been argued that the problem cannot be removed, nor can it be made easier to solve, by embracing any particular philosophy of mind."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/
Click to expand...
So you choose to ignore the problem instead of solving it?

Maartenn100 said:
They cannot define it. Their scientific tools are worthless when it comes to a phenomenon like consciousness.
Click to expand...
You have also not defined it. Just how do you recognize a consciousness?
 
Maartenn100 said:
Daylightstar said:
The consciousness Maartenn100 is talking about, for instance here, the consciousness which can not be measured or seen by apparatus or be certain about by other minds, according to Maartenn100.

The consciousness of which Maartenn100 does not want to or can not explain how he thinks he knows it exists outside of himself.

That consciousness.
Click to expand...
That's wrong. It's the current consensus among sceptics: they call it 'the problem of other minds'. It's not my concept.

"The problem of other minds has traditionally been regarded as an epistemological challenge raised by the skeptic."
(Wikipedia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds


In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, they conclude:

"7. Conclusion
This article has been almost entirely concerned with the epistemological problem of other minds. What generates the problem has been carefully delineated. The standard solutions have been outlined and the various critical responses discussed. What is clear is that there does not seem to be what might be called a received solution to the problem. It has been argued that the problem cannot be removed, nor can it be made easier to solve, by embracing any particular philosophy of mind."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/
Click to expand...

If you followed the hilited link, you'll see what indeed is, according to you:
Maartenn100 said:
...
It's a fact of nature that you cannot know for certain that other people have minds.Your scientific method cannot discover consciousness in nature AT ALL.
That's a fact.
Click to expand...
Hilite by Daylightstar
It's entirely your own invention.
 
Maartenn100 said:
They cannot define it. Their scientific tools are worthless when it comes to a phenomenon like consciousness.
Click to expand...

steenkh said:
...
You have also not defined it. Just how do you recognize a consciousness?
Click to expand...

He's defined it as a problem- that's enough for what is essentially a "god of the gaps" argument.
 
Are you sure that your waking aware self is all there is to you? I'm not so certain, however, a memory is a result of an organic process so I'm not certain the memory of a near death experience would be any kind of indication that something survives outside of the body.

My guess is death frees up degrees of freedom so that you can perceive what you can't see here while in a body. If you can't see it, smell it, taste it, hear it or touch it in the here and now chances are that your sensory organs aren't necessary to experience what's out there once liberated.
 
Jodie said:
Are you sure that your waking aware self is all there is to you? I'm not so certain, however, a memory is a result of an organic process so I'm not certain the memory of a near death experience would be any kind of indication that something survives outside of the body.

My guess is death frees up degrees of freedom so that you can perceive what you can't see here while in a body. If you can't see it, smell it, taste it, hear it or touch it in the here and now chances are that your sensory organs aren't necessary to experience what's out there once liberated.
Click to expand...
Certain that it is all there is? No, at least not beyond the certainty afforded by the knowledge that there is no evidence which -- upon scrutiny -- supports the idea and by the knowledge that such a thing is not required to explain any phenomena of which we are aware.

I will grant that it certainly feels as if consciousness exists as something more than an emergent property, but feelings are notoriously bad measuring sticks.
 
ok, this is a testimony of someone who experienced an NDE:
Try to avoid the Christian interpretation. He describes what he observed, but he is also interpreting it through his own cultural frame. (Christianity).

He is talking about a reality, where colors are more intense, where edges are more sharp. Immediately he 'knew' that that world was more real than our world here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRSjzY0s0SM

(try to seperate his believe in Christianity from his observations).

Fact is that many people talk about the same kind of spiritual world. And they have the same experience of this world as being real.

When you argue that this tangible realm is a product of the brain, why shouldn't you say that our observable world here is also a product of the brain? Our world here is been experienced as a less tangible world.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
ok, this is a testimony of someone who experienced an NDE:
Try to avoid the Christian interpretation. He describes what he observed, but he is also interpreting it through his own cultural frame. (Christianity).

He is talking about a reality, where colors are more intense, where edges are more sharp. Immediately he 'knew' that that world was more real than our world here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRSjzY0s0SM

(try to seperate his believe in Christianity from his observations).

Fact is that many people talk about the same kind of spiritual world. And they have the same experience of this world as being real.

When you argue that this tangible realm is a product of the brain, why shouldn't you say that our observable world here is also a product of the brain? Our world here is been experienced as a less tangible world.
Click to expand...
Because you are using two meanings of "product of the brain."

The NDE experience is a product of the brain; there is no actual realm associated. The observable physical word is an actual realm; beyond that, everyone admits that what we perceive of it is in some way filtered.
 
Garette said:
The NDE experience is a product of the brain; there is no actual realm associated. The observable physical word is an actual realm;
Click to expand...

How can you know that for sure?

Maybe we don't know the whole story yet. Maybe there is a bigger picture with a much broader perspective. But we don't have knowledge about this bigger picture. We don't see the whole puzzle and we interprete our observations through our own limited framework. (limited, because our knowledge of reality is not complete).

There are maybe other realms (dimensions (physics)) possible.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
How can you know that for sure?

Maybe we don't know the whole story yet. Maybe there is a bigger picture with a much broader perspective. But we don't have knowledge about this bigger picture. We don't see the whole puzzle and we interprete our observations through our own limited framework. (limited, because our knowledge of reality is not complete).

There are maybe other realms (dimensions (physics)) possible.
Click to expand...
I know it as surely as such a thing can -- as yet -- be known. In other words, my knowledge and certainty are provisional, but they are based on far, far more legitimate evidence than the claims you make here and similar claims that others have made.

"We don't know everything" is neither a revelation nor evidence.
 
There is no evidence for the existence of qualia. (seek a measuring device and try to discover it in the material world).
Yet it exists. (we can experience it). The fact that we experience it is evidence enough for us to claim that qualia exist. We don't need materialistic evidence. It's the same thing with these NDE's.

Prove that the experience of the color blue exists. That taste and the perceived blueness of the sky exists. Do you have evidence for that? No, only your own subjective experience is the portal to this part of reality.
 
Last edited:
Let's assume you are correct (you're not, I think. Though I am not an expert on qualia, I am not new to the concept, and "the properties of experience" are, in fact, evidenced).

Even if you are correct, the evidence for the observable realm is immense while that for the realm you are claiming remains absent.

It is not sufficient for you to say: "There are holes in your model!" You need to provide evidence for your own, and that model needs not only to be consistent with your model but also inconsistent with any other.
 
Even if you are correct, the evidence for the observable realm is immense while that for the realm you are claiming remains absent.
Click to expand...

To a certain degree, that's true. But I consider the independent testimonies of NDE-experiencers of this heavenly realm as some sort of evidence (cfr the value of independent testimonies in a courtroom). Testimonies have some value when we want to know the truth (in court f.e.).

But we can't run to a certain conclusion about our measurable world, as long as we don't know the whole picture.
It's the context of a signal which will determ the meaning of the signal.
When there is a much broader context, and this observable world is part of it, then this will lead to a different conclusion about the world. The final conlclusion about the world depends on complete knowledge of everything there is to know in the world.
And till know, we do not know everything, but NDE's must be part of the whole picture, somehow.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
To a certain degree, that's true. But I consider the independent testimonies of NDE-experiencers of this heavenly realm as some sort of evidence (cfr the value of independent testimonies in a courtroom). Testimonies have some value when we want to know the truth (in court f.e.).
Click to expand...
That's the central problem in your reasoning. The testimonies are evidence, but they remain so only to the extent that they withstand scrutiny. In other words, they are a starting point for an investigation and not an end point, which is how you are using them. And once they have been scrutinized, they fall apart. Once they fall apart, they are no longer evidence.

Your objection will be that not all of them have been scrutinized, and this is true, but enough of them have been to cast doubt on the genre. Some testimonies might withstand scrutiny, but it is not the responsibility of your critics to perform such scrutiny on your behalf; rather, it is incumbent upon them to ask you to demonstrate how these testimonies differ from the earlier ones. That question remains unsatisfactorily answered.



Maartenn100 said:
But we can't run to a certain conclusion about our measurable world, as long as we don't know the whole picture.It's the context of a signal which will determ the meaning of the signal.
When there is a much broader context, and this observable world is part of it, then this will lead to a different conclusion about the world. The final conlclusion about the world depends on complete knowledge of everything there is to know in the world.
And till know, we do not know everything, but NDE's must be part of the whole picture, somehow.
Click to expand...
No. Not knowing the whole picture is not the same as being unable to draw provisional -- and reliable -- conclusions. If it were, then you are being disingenuous because you are reaching conclusions about your own proposed realm while knowing even less.

{have to run for the evening, so this is my last post for a while}
 
Garrette said:
Certain that it is all there is? No, at least not beyond the certainty afforded by the knowledge that there is no evidence which -- upon scrutiny -- supports the idea and by the knowledge that such a thing is not required to explain any phenomena of which we are aware.

I will grant that it certainly feels as if consciousness exists as something more than an emergent property, but feelings are notoriously bad measuring sticks.
Click to expand...


Nahh, it's just my belief, and me trying to rationalize how it could work. I realize we are so limited here on earth that I probably have it just as wrong as someone who thinks consciousness is strictly an organic process.
 
Maartenn100 said:
There is no evidence for the existence of qualia. (seek a measuring device and try to discover it in the material world).
Click to expand...
Qualia is a philosophical concept. It only exists in the minds of people.

Yet it exists. (we can experience it).
Click to expand...
We can experience many things that are thoughts in our heads. Some exist outside our minds, others not.

As far as we know now, thoughts are patterns of neurons firing in our brain. Consequently, the experience of seeing blue is a firing pattern in our brain.

The fact that we experience it is evidence enough for us to claim that qualia exist. We don't need materialistic evidence. It's the same thing with these NDE's.
Click to expand...
Nobody claims that NDEs do not exist. Your unsubstantiated claim is that NDEs are more than neurons firing in our heads.

Prove that the experience of the color blue exists. That taste and the perceived blueness of the sky exists. Do you have evidence for that? No, only your own subjective experience is the portal to this part of reality.
Click to expand...

Of course our own subjective experiences is the portal to reality. We use science to try to make the subjective experiences into objective facts.

Maybe we got it wrong, maybe there really is only me, and you are all figments of my imagination, maybe we are all brains in a vat, maybe we are simulations.

All of these possibilities are speculations without evidence. The available evidence does not support that qualia or NDEs are anything else neuron firing patterns.
 
Garrette said:
I will grant that it certainly feels as if consciousness exists as something more than an emergent property, but feelings are notoriously bad measuring sticks.
Click to expand...

I agree.

My imagination simply cannot fathom that I might not exist. When I think of death I constantly think of it as if I can watch from outside. Somehow it is easier to understand that I did not exist before my birth, but in reality, I have no experience with non-existence, and that is what NDEs, and life-after-death are all about: the mind's attempt to cope with something that cannot be experienced.
 
Jodie said:
Nahh, it's just my belief, and me trying to rationalize how it could work. I realize we are so limited here on earth that I probably have it just as wrong as someone who thinks consciousness is strictly an organic process.
Click to expand...

I agree. Who are 'we' to think that we can grasp the whole picture of things.
 
Maartenn100 said:
I agree. Who are 'we' to think that we can grasp the whole picture of things.
Click to expand...
Who is this 'we' that thinks that?

The objection is to those who try to use the fact that we don't, and never will, know everything as an excuse to wilfully ignore what we do know.
 
However, this is not one of those situations where much is understood regarding what happens after death and consciousness.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
To a certain degree, that's true. But I consider the independent testimonies of NDE-experiencers of this heavenly realm as some sort of evidence (cfr the value of independent testimonies in a courtroom). Testimonies have some value when we want to know the truth (in court f.e.).

But we can't run to a certain conclusion about our measurable world, as long as we don't know the whole picture.
It's the context of a signal which will determ the meaning of the signal.When there is a much broader context, and this observable world is part of it, then this will lead to a different conclusion about the world. The final conlclusion about the world depends on complete knowledge of everything there is to know in the world.
And till know, we do not know everything, but NDE's must be part of the whole picture, somehow.
Click to expand...

Whether it's a signal is determined by context; but you cannot determine context from a single signal.
 
Man lost 75% of his brain: he still led a normal life, how is that even possible?

This man lost 75 % of his brain. Yet he walks and talks as usual.
How is this even possible according to the current scientific consensus:


This falsifying evidence destroys the 'brain = mind' idea completely:

hx9gdy.jpg


Source: The Lancet

(the 'believe' of the researcher is an attempt to keep their brain = mind concept despite this evidence to the contrary).
 
Last edited:
Given that your image's text contradicts your thesis, you're going to put in more work. An actual argument, perhaps.

eta: And while I'm not medically educated enough to fully understand the Lancet article, I CAN tell that it says he had an IQ of 75 and problems using his legs. So even allowing for the most generous interpretation it wasn't everything normal or"as usual".
 
Last edited:
Several important points (if you care):

1. He lead an adequate life, but I would hardly care it "normal." The damage to his brain left him with an IQ significantly below normal and with a number of definite physical problems over the years, such as problems with coordination and sensing, which declined when some of the excess fluid was allowed to drain through a shunt.

2. Volume perception can be very misleading, especially when comparing the middle of a sphere to the outer portions. I think the estimate of 50% in terms of volume is probably much closer to the truth than the 75% in your OP.

3. Most important of all- is the loss of 50% indeed a true loss of brain cells, or are most or many of them still there but displaced to the edges by the fluid in the middle?

This is indeed an example of how plastic brain function can be, but I realize (based on your usual posts) that you are almost surely citing it as proof that our mind is separate from our brain. This person has a significant amount of brain tissue left, even though it is distorted compared to average, and any damage that was done appears to have occurred over years, allowing the parts of his brain that remain to take on any lost function. Remarkable as to how brains function, but not indicating that brains don't need to function to have a mind.
 
Maartenn100 said:
This destroys the 'brain = mind' idea completely:

[qimg]http://i65.tinypic.com/hx9gdy.jpg[/qimg]

Source: The Lancet
Click to expand...

"The brain remapped itself to function despite the loss of mass."

You've quoted the Lancet explaining how the brain compensated. To destroy the brain-mind idea, you'll need to show that the Lancet has it wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom