A Harvard neurosurgeon's evidence for life after death

[cornbread_r2]

Your deduction is invalid. “reporting” excludes those who have not reported NDEs before they died and those who have not reported NDEs without having died. I am a prime example of the latter - and it is possible I may have died without being aware of the fact.

You’re quite right. The universe of near death experiences would potentially include those which occurred but were not reported. However, since they weren’t reported, you can only assume that they occurred. More importantly, even if they did occur, you couldn’t possibly know anything about them and could not have been referring to them when you wrote:

Far from being useless, NDEs are, in my opinion, convincing evidence that materialism is false and that we survive after death as conscious individuals.

(emphasis mine)

If you want to now include all unreported near death experiences within the term NDE, be my quest, but it’s clear to me that’s not how we’ve been using the term up til now. This is just hairsplitting to avoid having to acknowledge that I didn’t misrepresent you.

Finally, you would not be an example of the latter – “those who have not reported NDEs without having died” – as you have reported your experience here.

Please give one specific example of a conclusive empirically-based, plausible, naturalistic explanation for NDEs.

You’re only asking for conclusive evidence because you already know that scientific conclusions never rise to 100% certitude and are always provisional. That allows you to ignore the empirically-based, plausible, naturalistic explanations for NDEs that are out there and/or to pretend that anything that isn’t 100% certain is therefore 100% worthless. Did you read any of the links I posted early on in this thread?

I’ll write more later.

 

[cornbread_r2]

What (if any) is your explanation?

How about the same freaking explanation that’s been flogged about this thread since the beginning?

**Regardless of how compromised a person’s brain might have been – since NDEs are never reported in real time – it is not possible to verify if their NDE occurred when the brain was at its lowest level, on the way down, on the way up, or almost fully recovered.
**

 

[Aloysium]

How about the same freaking explanation that’s been flogged about this thread since the beginning?

**Regardless of how compromised a person’s brain might have been – since NDEs are never reported in real time – it is not possible to verify if their NDE occurred when the brain was at it’s lowest level, on the way down, on the way up, or almost fully recovered.
**

does it matter?

even if someone had a dream like that on a normal night, it would be significant

they are obviously some sort of altered state of consciousness
in which ppl have very similar experiences
which seem to get to the heart of what it means to be in existence

the experience suggests that life contains more than the day-to-day

opening the door to what is outside
is not the same as going for a stroll through the woods or to the city centre

there are reasons why images of what lies beyond are so vague
we’ll all find out it due time

 

[Greg_N]

NDE’s, dreams, hallucinations etc. are all (in some respect, whether they’re subjective or not) apart of this reality. Deal with it.

 

[tonyrey]

**Regardless of how compromised a person’s brain might have been – since NDEs are never reported in real time – it is not possible to verify if their NDE occurred when the brain was at its lowest level, on the way down, on the way up, or almost fully recovered.
**

1. To reject an experience outright because it cannot be p(name removed by moderator)ointed in time or space presupposes that **all **events are restricted to scientific, i.e physical, categories.

2.The demise of logical positivism was due to the realisation that the verifiability principle
cannot be verified by sense perceptions.

1. Our intangible personal experiences are the foundation of **all **our knowledge.
2. We infer the existence of physical objects and events from our intangible perceptions.
3. It is irrational to reject intangible reality on principle.
4. Intangible facts remain facts even if they don’t correspond to one’s preconceived notions of reality…

 

[tonyrey]

NDE’s, dreams, hallucinations etc. are all (in some respect, whether they’re subjective or not) apart of this reality. Deal with it.

A succinct success!

 

[tonyrey]

does it matter?

even if someone had a dream like that on a normal night, it would be significant

they are obviously some sort of altered state of consciousness
in which ppl have very similar experiences
which seem to get to the heart of what it means to be in existence

the experience suggests that life contains more than the day-to-day

opening the door to what is outside
is not the same as going for a stroll through the woods or to the city centre

there are reasons why images of what lies beyond are so vague
we’ll all find out it due time

It is not only irrational to restrict oneself to the world of sense data it also deprives life of all value, purpose and meaning. Materialism is pernicious because it makes people think life is not worth living especially when they are faced with hardship and suffering. The most important things in life are intangible…

 

[tonyrey]

You’re only asking for conclusive evidence because you already know that scientific conclusions never rise to 100% certitude and are always provisional. That allows you to ignore the empirically-based, plausible, naturalistic explanations for NDEs that are out there and/or to pretend that anything that isn’t 100% certain is therefore 100% worthless.

Non sequitur. There are degrees of probability.

All empirically-based, naturalistic explanations presuppose **the validity of reason **which is undermined if reasoning is the result of processes which lack insight and understanding. This is a fundamental fact generally ignored by those who stake everything on what can be perceived by the physical senses.

“There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy…”

 

[cornbread_r2]

1. To reject an experience outright because it cannot be p(name removed by moderator)ointed in time or space presupposes that **all **events are restricted to scientific, i.e physical, categories.

…]

Strawman

I don’t outright reject NDEs because they’re intangible, just as I don’t reject the feelings described as “love” just because those feelings are intangible. NDE reporters such as Dr. Alexander ask that I believe they glimpsed an afterlife because they claim that their experience occurred at a specific time – while they were near death. Indeed, that timing is the only reason people pay any attention to their claims and don’t just write them off as flights of fancy while in an ordinary dream state. As they have not offered any verifiable evidence for that assertion, I’m completely justified in rejecting that claim until such evidence is forthcoming. The rejection of that claim – that they experienced the afterlife while they were near death – is further justified in that people have, in fact, reported NDE-type experiences when they were not even close to death, e.g. while under the influence of certain drugs.

 

[Linux]

Strawman

I don’t outright reject NDEs because they’re intangible, just as I don’t reject the feelings described as “love” just because those feelings are intangible. NDE reporters such as Dr. Alexander ask that I believe they glimpsed an afterlife because they claim that their experience occurred at a specific time – while they were near death. Indeed, that timing is the only reason people pay any attention to their claims and don’t just write them off as flights of fancy while in an ordinary dream state. As they have not offered any verifiable evidence for that assertion, I’m completely justified in rejecting that claim until such evidence is forthcoming. The rejection of that claim – that they experienced the afterlife while they were near death – is further justified in that people have, in fact, reported NDE-type experiences when they were not even close to death, e.g. while under the influence of certain drugs.

I agree. In fact I would expect that there would be weird experiences if somebody nearly died. The Brain is a powerful object. When I was really ill I had all kinds of weird dreams. Perhaps that’s just how the brain copes when near death.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t outright reject NDEs because they’re intangible, just as I don’t reject the feelings described as “love” just because those feelings are intangible.

I did not state that you reject NDEs because they’re intangible - although your wholesale rejection of supernatural events is obviously a determining factor - but because they cannot be p(name removed by moderator)ointed in time or space like ordinary events.

NDE reporters such as Dr. Alexander ask that I believe they glimpsed an afterlife because they claim that their experience occurred at a specific time – while they were near death. Indeed, that timing is the only reason people pay any attention to their claims and don’t just write them off as flights of fancy while in an ordinary dream state. As they have not offered any verifiable evidence for that assertion, I’m completely justified in rejecting that claim until such evidence is forthcoming.

Timing is not the only reason. Dr. Alexander stressed the fact that during his coma his brain wasn’t working at all:

Many of the NDEs reported happen when a person’s heart has shut down for a while but in my case the neocortex [higher brain] was out of the picture. I was encountering a world of consciousness that existed free of the limitations of my physical brain.

As no one has explained how this is scientifically possible no one is entitled to dismiss a neurosurgeon’s opinion as wishful thinking or a flight of fancy.

You are also assuming that people never glimpse an afterlife when they are not near death
yet there have been many accounts of such experiences.

The rejection of that claim – that they experienced the afterlife while they were near death – is further justified in that people have, in fact, reported NDE-type experiences when they were not even close to death, e.g. while under the influence of certain drugs.

Similarity of experiences is a very weak reason for rejecting the authenticity of NDEs. It is an argument that could be used to prove almost anything, e.g. people are never genuinely inspired unless they are under the influence of certain drugs…

 

[tonyrey]

I agree. In fact I would expect that there would be weird experiences if somebody nearly died. The Brain is a powerful object. When I was really ill I had all kinds of weird dreams. Perhaps that’s just how the brain copes when near death.

Were you in a coma?

 

[Linux]

Were you in a coma?

No

 

[tonyrey]

No

Then your neocortex wasn’t was out of the picture like Dr Alexander’s…

 

[Aloysium]

Then your neocortex wasn’t was out of the picture like Dr Alexander’s…

it’s more than the neocortex - what about the fact that there is a memory?

usually there is amnesia for events prior to and after an event that causes some sort of brain injury

that is what interests me perhaps more so than trying to decipher what the content means

but there is too much of a muddle in trying to understand these experiences from the outside
i don’t believe there will be progress in this area in my lifetime anyway
and then i will find out first hand

 

[tonyrey]

it’s more than the neocortex - what about the fact that there is a memory?

usually there is amnesia for events prior to and after an event that causes some sort of brain injury

that is what interests me perhaps more so than trying to decipher what the content means

but there is too much of a muddle in trying to understand these experiences from the outside
i don’t believe there will be progress in this area in my lifetime anyway
and then i will find out first hand

You’re quite right! I didn’t stop to mention all the ways in which the mind transcends brain activity (assuming that I could . The power of hypnosis is another important factor.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Citing a post of mine referencing Dr. Alexander’s case, you responded:

1. To reject an experience outright because it cannot be p(name removed by moderator)ointed in time or space presupposes that **all **events are restricted to scientific, i.e physical, categories.

2.The demise of logical positivism was due to the realisation that the verifiability principle cannot be verified by sense perceptions.

1. Our intangible personal experiences are the foundation of **all **our knowledge.
2. We infer the existence of physical objects and events from our intangible perceptions.
3. It is irrational to reject intangible reality on principle.
4. Intangible facts remain facts even if they don’t correspond to one’s preconceived notions of reality…

You then posted:

I did not state that you reject NDEs because they’re intangible - although your wholesale rejection of supernatural events is obviously a determining factor - but because they cannot be p(name removed by moderator)ointed in time or space like ordinary events.

See #5 above. Please also show where I espoused metaphysical naturalism.

*During my coma my brain wasn’t working improperly, it wasn’t working at all. Many of the NDEs reported happen when a person’s heart has shut down for a while but in my case the neocortex [higher brain] was out of the picture. I was encountering a world of consciousness that existed free of the limitations of my physical brain. *

As no one has explained how this is scientifically possible no one is entitled to dismiss a neurosurgeon’s opinion as wishful thinking or a flight of fancy.

I don’t need to be a brain surgeon to know – or state for maybe the fifth time – that Dr. Alexander cannot know that he experienced his world of consciousness while he was in a coma. Since it’s apparent that you aren’t going to take my word for that – and unless you’re going to dismiss a neuroscientist’s opinion as a flight of fantasy – please read this previously-linked neuroscientist’s article.

You are also assuming that people never glimpse an afterlife when they are not near death yet there have been many accounts of such experiences.

Do you, by any chance, accept as authentic all reports of an afterlife regardless of whether the reporter was near death or not? If so – and if there a lot of folks like yourself – then I think I’ve found the answer to my uncertain economic future.

All I’ve done for the past several posts is repeat myself. Unless you have some substantive objection that hasn’t already been addressed in the thread then I won’t be responding further.

Have a good one.

 

[Linux]

Citing a post of mine referencing Dr. Alexander’s case, you responded:

You then posted:

See #5 above. Please also show where I espoused metaphysical naturalism.

During my coma my brain wasn’t working improperly, it wasn’t working at all. Many of the NDEs reported happen when a person’s heart has shut down for a while but in my case the neocortex [higher brain] was out of the picture. I was encountering a world of consciousness that existed free of the limitations of my physical brain.

I don’t need to be a brain surgeon to know – or state for maybe the fifth time – that Dr. Alexander cannot know that he experienced his world of consciousness while he was in a coma. Since it’s apparent that you aren’t going to take my word for that – and unless you’re going to dismiss a neuroscientist’s opinion as a flight of fantasy – please read this previously-linked neuroscientist’s article.

Do you, by any chance, accept as authentic all reports of an afterlife regardless of whether the reporter was near death or not? If so – and if there a lot of folks like yourself – then I think I’ve found the answer to my uncertain economic future.

All I’ve done for the past several posts is repeat myself. Unless you have some substantive objection that hasn’t already been addressed in the thread then I won’t be responding further.

Have a good one.

 

[tonyrey]

See #5 above. Please also show where I espoused metaphysical naturalism.

There is nothing in your posts that indicates anything to the contrary - and everything to indicate - including your scepticism regarding religion - that you believe natural causes explain the existence of all life (including persons of course)…

During my coma my brain wasn’t working improperly, it wasn’t working at all. Many of the NDEs reported happen when a person’s heart has shut down for a while but in my case the neocortex [higher brain] was out of the picture. I was encountering a world of consciousness that existed free of the limitations of my physical brain.

As no one has explained how this is scientifically possible no one is entitled to dismiss a neurosurgeon’s opinion as wishful thinking or a flight of fancy.
I don’t need to be a brain surgeon to know – or state for maybe the fifth time – that Dr. Alexander cannot know that he experienced his world of consciousness while he was in a coma. Since it’s apparent that you aren’t going to take my word for that – and unless you’re going to dismiss a neuroscientist’s opinion as a flight of fantasy – please read this previously-linked neuroscientist’s article.

Your opinions are based on the materialistic assumption that all knowledge occurs in the brain.

Do you, by any chance, accept as authentic all reports of an afterlife regardless of whether the reporter was near death or not? If so – and if there a lot of folks like yourself – then I think I’ve found the answer to my uncertain economic future.

Non sequitur. BTW You ( like me) are far from being the only one in that situation - thanks to the unChristian values by which society is dominated…

All I’ve done for the past several posts is repeat myself. Unless you have some substantive objection that hasn’t already been addressed in the thread then I won’t be responding further.

Unless you can explain why you believe scientific explanation is the most fundamental type of explanation there is certainly no point.

Have a good one.

With best wishes…

 

[tonyrey]

Why not try refuting the points I have made?