Near Death and Out of Body Experiences

[Slowvehicle]

Here is the research being done in applying biological neural networks onto microchips:

http://http://apt.cs.manchester.ac.uk/ftp/pub/amulet/papers/MMK_IJCNN08.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v12/n7/abs/nmat3630.html

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_u...yrl9reWuYjNg3KdLcVRgtUSug&nossl=1&oi=scholarr

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/44529.wss

This article lists several studies with conflicting results from what has been previously posted. The conclusion is that more research needs to be done into the phenomena:

http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00209/full

The available scientific explanations are very relevant in the process of understanding NDEs, but they still remain hypotheses, given the persistent lack of proofs. There is a need for further efforts undertaken with an open mind and a truly skeptical stance (that is, neither accepting nor refusing any possibility a priori) to avoid the risk of putting belief and faith (not just scientific ones) before facts, with the implicit risk of giving rise to new wrong beliefs and dogmatic drifts. According to (van Lommel 2010), “true science does not restrict itself to narrow materialistic assumptions but is open to new and initially inexplicable findings and welcome the challenge of finding explanatory theories” (p. 331).


http://aihub.net/architects-mind-blueprint-human-brain/

http://http://aihub.net/emergent-inference-or-how-can-a-program-become-a-self-programming-agi-system-sergio-pissanetzky/

And this one just because it reinforces my bias that our consciousness uses our organic bodies as "avatars".

http://http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847


There is much more out there than just this, it's really amazing stuff! Anyway, I don't see why using organic AI wouldn't give us a better idea of what actually happens during an NDE.

Thank you very much--I'll get some reading done, and get back to you.

 

[Dr B]

"Does individual consciousness exist after the body has died?"

When one considers the broad and collective evidence, the chances of it being true are so remote it would be logically perverse to consider it probable.
Therefore, consider it, at the very least unlikely, and more unlikely than rival explanations. I think that's the point.

This is a question that scientific method cannot (at least for now) claim with certainty to be able to answer one way or the other.

Science is probablistic not deterministic - dont criticise it for something it never claimed to be able to do in the first place. So can we dispense with 'certainty' and talk about 'probably'.

The scientific method can provide evidence that speaks to this issue - please go back and actually read the thread and the links etc for some evidence (a non-comprehensive list) that speaks to the general issue. Ultimately, the evidence is more consistent with the notion that the mind is, what the brain does.

It is still very much a personal thing - to believe or not believe.

No it is not - if one is engaged in evidenced-based reasoning. You form the conclusion that is warranted by the evidence (reasons) of highest quality. You need to make the argument for quality in order for the conclusion to stand. It's not belief.

I remain open to the possibility but think it is one of those things that only death will provide an answer for

and you would be wrong.

Clearly others who have posted in this thread have far stronger views for and against, but I do not understand why they feel they actually have to.

Far stronger or better evidenced? The 'need' is so that we have a comprehensive understanding - that's what science ultimately does. This is the base of all true knowledge.

 

[Nonpareil]

What do 'most people' like in the way of an answer?

That the soul exists and they will survive after death.

I have seen no claims (and expect to see no such claims) from the scientific community verifying with certainty through scientific method that individual consciousness does not continue on in some non physical state once the body has died.

This is only because you don't see any claims from the scientific community verifying with certainty that magic does not exist.

All evidence we have points to consciousness being a result of brain function and having no ability to continue on without it. We have precisely zero evidence for the opposite claim.

That can only be considered "non-definitive" if you're willing to heft some pretty heavy goalposts.

I would suggest that for the most part, scientists see no value in trying to find ways to penetrate and examine what might be, when there is simply so much of what is to explore and even profit from.

Theoretical physics, neuroscience, and a dozen other fields would all like to have a word.

 

[Aepervius]

I don't think you're suggesting that there are scientific instruments which can penetrate and examine a possible non physical reality. Scientists deal with the study of the physical reality, and have barely scratched the surface of the physical reality. I would suggest that for the most part, scientists see no value in trying to find ways to penetrate and examine what might be, when there is simply so much of what is to explore and even profit from.

Are you joking ? If there was even a HINT at "something" being there, scientist would *flock* to get the first nobel price in an undisputed field. And that's not even counting the patents, the social implication, the hero worship you get from people for having proved there is no "end" etc....etc...

The problem is not that there "might" be something, there might also be dragon on jupiter for a certain value of might. No the problem is the utter absence of scientific evidence which is the bummer.

Even then some people *do* try to study those fields, and usually come up with nada.

 

[Navigator]

It's also impossible to experience, making it a nonsense.

Subjectively, something uniquely non physical can be experienced consciously, by all accounts. Debate of course, comes with the territory as to what the experience might derive from (brain, or a real alternate reality?), but your claim that such things are impossible to experience is inaccurate.

For myself, I don't feel a need or a belief in my matter-of-fact death-is-the-end outlook. I actually feel ashamed to entertain the idea of living beyond death. It's akin to thinking I'm bullet proof, or I can bounce from a high fall.

Ah - a judgement call. You believe your consciousness will not survive your bodies death because not to believe that is to have to entertain the thought that it possibly will and for you, that is something to be ashamed of, because it is evidence of being a bit nuts.

This type of thinking and acting tends to allow for one to make the same judgement calls about others who (like myself) see no reason to make a definitive call one way or the other. For the religious believer in the afterlife, this might be expressed as "those who don't believe the same are sinners doomed to some other fate reserved for such." For the believers in the other way, (such as yourself), those who do not also believe in that particular way of thinking - well they are simply shameful nuts.

Fortunately such judgement calls, are not scientific in nature. I think they possibly spring from a more emotional realm of the human psyche

 

[Belz...]

Other broader evidence is also interesting. For example, Children report meeting cartoon characters in 'the light' or characters from Sesame street, etc in a world full of sweets and treats......oddly, this is absent from adult NDEs.

Do you have a link for that ? Because it is hilarious and so sad for NDE-as-peeks-into-the-afterlife believers.

 

[Belz...]

"Does individual consciousness exist after the body has died?"

This is a question that scientific method cannot (at least for now) claim with certainty to be able to answer one way or the other.

If you go with this definition of "certain", no method can, so you cannot have any knowledge of anything whatsoever.

Under more pragmatic definition, of course it can: consciousness cannot exist at death.

 

[Belz...]

No it's not a dodge, see my comment above.

Too late, I've already answered for you.

Taste of your own medecine, and all that.

Not really, because if the person is brain dead then none of this should happen, period, whether it's a chemical or an electrical process.

But people having NDEs aren't dead. See, the title gives it away: NEAR-death.

Hypoxia/anoxia alone is a simplistic explanation for NDE's

You misspelled "unsatisfactory", there.

 

[Nonpareil]

Subjectively, something uniquely non physical can be experienced consciously, by all accounts.

Thinking you are experiencing something non-physical and actually experiencing something non-physical are not the same thing.

 

[Donn]

Subjectively, something uniquely non physical can be experienced consciously, by all accounts.

Nonpareil nailed it. Everything that can be experienced is physical.

If it comes from some mystical source it must first become physical before your senses and brain can experience it.

No such mystical sources have ever been found.

Ah - a judgement call. You believe your consciousness will not survive your bodies death because not to believe that is to have to entertain the thought that it possibly will and for you, that is something to be ashamed of, because it is evidence of being a bit nuts.

I just finished saying its not a belief. I don't know how you experience belief, but I don't spend a lot of energy on the question. Life after death, meh; there's no way to know and everything in the deck is stacked against such a notion.

For the believers in the other way, (such as yourself), those who do not also believe in that particular way of thinking - well they are simply shameful nuts.

That's pat. Perhaps I have other thoughts and feelings. Perhaps those change all the time. But, whatever.

Fortunately such judgement calls, are not scientific in nature. I think they possibly spring from a more emotional realm of the human psyche

You're the one who's morphed this into a "judgement call" as if I'm on some council of Heresy dealing out sanity points or torture.

As to the notion of being closed: The dragon on Jupiter is a good example. Would you hold a door open for such a notion? I'd say that door's closed and can be ignored, until there's some reason to walk down that hallway someday.

In other words, I don't do binary, I do gradients. At some level the idea falls from my mind because there's no energy to maintain it and others want in. When the idea starts to clamour and I notice it, that's when I may invite it in once more. Repeat.

 

[Dr B]

Do you have a link for that ? Because it is hilarious and so sad for NDE-as-peeks-into-the-afterlife believers.

I dont have a link, but i can tell where to find the information. Sue Blackmore's book (1993) "Dying to Live" has a brief section on children and the NDE and i think the original work was done by Melvyn Morse - something like "Children and the light" (a book).

Morse still fosters a supernatural view if i remember rightly, where spirits come to children as cartoon characters so as not to scare them......you couldn't make this stuff up......

Its nearly always over-looked by the woo's as it kind of puts a different slant on things, no?

 

[Navigator]

I would like to believe that my consciousness will survive death. I don't believe that, because all the evidence says otherwise.

More accurately, all the evidence is physical and says nothing except what individual determines, and that depends on the particular beliefs of the individual, as I have already pointed out.
Evidence suggests things.
One does not have to believe either way. It may be that it is worth while to believe a particular way, because one won't have to be treated as being on the fringe in relation to ones peers and perhaps miss out on advances.

For some people wanting something to be true seems to be sufficient reason to believe it. For others that's the worst possible reason to believe something, in fact it's a reason to be particularly careful about evaluating the evidence as objectively as possible.

Precisely what I have said. There is no reason whatsoever to enter into belief either way. If you believe there is no continuation the individual consciousness after the body dies, then it is because such belief suits the particular personality that you identify as being. It is that personality which decides how evidence is interpreted.

 

[Navigator]

Thinking you are experiencing something non-physical and actually experiencing something non-physical are not the same thing.

How would you be able to tell the difference?

There is no way of being certain.

Metaphor.

This whole life on earth, in a galaxy, in a universe might be the product of a vast interactive simulation which we are consciously involved within and as such we are able to think of it as being real, and respond to it as such.
Indeed we have to think of it as being real because it is the only thing we have to go on in relation to reality and what is real. There is no way of testing if it is a simulation.

(And even if it is a simulation, it can still be regarded as 'real'.)

Whatever consciousness might be involved within and think as being real, would be - for all intent and purpose - real.

If one were to somehow be able to remove oneself from it, one might be able to see then it as no longer being real. That might also be how consciousness views the physical universe if indeed it survives the death of the physical body.

If consciousness survives the death of the body, and finds itself in a non physical reality, then that would become the dominant reality. Reality is defined by the consciousness experiencing it.

An individual consciousness in human form, as a creature on a planet has the dominant reality of the physical universe. We as conscious individuals experiencing this reality respond to it and in many ways allow it to shape our own sense of identity.

Being able to think outside the realms of physical reality does not necessarily mean one is 'nuts'.

 

[Navigator]

Nonpareil nailed it. Everything that can be experienced is physical.

If it comes from some mystical source it must first become physical before your senses and brain can experience it.

No such mystical sources have ever been found.

What are 'mystical forces' and why are you mentioning these?
It is apparent that while consciousness is within the living form, everything it experiences has a relationship with the physical.

The 'mystical force' you allude to may simply be consciousness. Perhaps not as we might understand consciousness to be (in relation to physical existence) - so therefore, yes 'mystical' in that regard. A bit of a mystery for which scientific method cannot uncover, or cultural/religious interpretation most likely is woefully misrepresenting.

If that is so, then your statement:

If it comes from some mystical source it must first become physical before your senses and brain can experience it.

Separates one consciousness from the other. Like the metaphor regarding the physical universe being a simulation, the simulation may have been created by the consciousness in order that the said consciousness could then experience the simulation as a reality.
This then would signify that in order for the simulation to exist, first the consciousness had to create it and then enter it and experience it through animal senses and brains.
Brains and bodies act as instruments which retard the abilities of the consciousness because otherwise the simulation wouldn't work as intended.

The consciousness is the same re 'source'. The separation is the illusion caused by the retardation experienced because of the physical universe. Thus the consciousness within the simulation has no choice but to regard any notion of a consciousness outside the physical universe as being 'mysterious', at least while involved directly with the physical.

I just finished saying its not a belief. I don't know how you experience belief, but I don't spend a lot of energy on the question. Life after death, meh; there's no way to know and everything in the deck is stacked against such a notion.

Only because the notion is perceived inside the physical. If one consciously experiences the non physical, the notion changes accordingly.
Thinking that the notion is nuts simply because your focus is on the physical, forces you to spend energy on the question, from that perspective. Because of your belief (against the notion of consciousness surviving the death of the body) you do expend energy attempting to uphold the belief against those who have opposing beliefs (that consciousness survives the death of the body) and even against those who don't know either way and choose therefore not to believe either way. You will expend energy trying to convince them to believe what it is you believe. There is no other way around it.

You're the one who's morphed this into a "judgement call" as if I'm on some council of Heresy dealing out sanity points or torture.

You are dealing out statements about nuts, that's all. I am calling you on that trying to remind you that such statements are not scientific in nature but derive from something else.

As to the notion of being closed: The dragon on Jupiter is a good example. Would you hold a door open for such a notion? I'd say that door's closed and can be ignored, until there's some reason to walk down that hallway someday.

Dragons on Jupiter (or for that matter, pink unicorns and leprechauns) are not so relevant to the subject of the possibility of consciousness surviving the death of the body. They are more relevant to the subject of beliefs.

In other words, I don't do binary, I do gradients. At some level the idea falls from my mind because there's no energy to maintain it and others want in. When the idea starts to clamour and I notice it, that's when I may invite it in once more. Repeat.

As a subject, there is little in the way of space being taken up which is better used for other ideas etc. I like it because my body is going to die one day so that fact alone allows me to have some interest. I don't indulge in creating 'dragons and unicorns' about what it will be like and what I might experience should that be the case, I'll take things as they come and deal with it at the time, and do with it what I can. Should such be the case.

Which is exactly as I live in this physical reality. If it were not for the fact that death of my body is to be a sure thing, I would not give such thoughts any time at all.
That and the fact that I have actually experienced what people referred to as OOB - only twice and only once willfully. (The first time was involuntary.) Both events were quite short. But they were experienced.

I would go so far as to say, hey if you can do it, go for it. It doesn't really matter as far as I can tell whether it is a product of the brain or a purposefully intentional product of consciousness independent of the brain, there simply is no scientifically engineered equivalent. Not in the manufacture and distribution of gaming, weapons, drugs, space program's, insecticides, movies, or anything else designed to sell for the purpose of entertainment etc. Hey and it is free!

 

[Aepervius]

How would you be able to tell the difference?

There is no way of being certain.

Metaphor.

This whole life on earth, in a galaxy, in a universe might be the product of a vast interactive simulation which we are consciously involved within and as such we are able to think of it as being real, and respond to it as such.

Brain in a jar, p zombie, and solipsim in general lead to nowhere whatsoever.

So we are in a simulation.

Now what ? You gained nothing on understanding the universe, you gained nothing in predictability power you gained nothing in advancing our condition.

All the philosophical argument you presented so far lead to the same dead end.
it is really simple : if what you present has the same predictability power as the brain-in-the-jar concept, then you have presented nothing of worth.

That's why the physical brain has a lot of predictability power, and is used all the day in medicine, biology, psychology, psychiatry.

The NDE=soul leaving or whatever other mysical crap is used nowhere except as brain wanking for that reason : it is a dead end has no predictability power and come down to the belief of the person grasping at myths to avoid admitting that death is the END with a capital E.

*WHEN* and only when you have something more to bite on, evidence and so forth, you may have a chance to convince us. Until then it is no more than puff the dragon cruising around Jupiter.

 

[Nonpareil]

How would you be able to tell the difference?

There is no way of being certain.

You couldn't. Thus, you are not.

Things like this are a running issue in discussions on this and similar topics. If you have a functional definition of the words "is" and "exists", the entire thing evaporates.

Word games are not particularly convincing.

 

[bruto]

Part of this problem, and one of the issues I have found with philosophy in general, is that when we approach the unknowable we somehow conflate the appearance of reasonableness with the degree of credibility. I think that's a one way street. It's true that the degree of INcredibility must reasonably follow that path. We have no reason even to be polite to beliefs that are obviously and clearly crazy and that violate all we consider rational. But what status do we reserve for beliefs that are cozy and popular? Is an unfounded supposition more founded simply because it is not utterly crazy? It's not as crazy, but moving something closer to the boundary of reality does not push it over. Must we grant some kind of space to every unfounded surmise that by some stretch of the imagination we can shoehorn into known reality without a visible crash?

Of course the mystical sort will never agree with this, but it seems to me that any mystical or unproven idea remains in the realm of art and imagination unless, or until, the reality we know fails to work without it. It's not enough to say it would be better, or even work better. I think if an idea is unproven, then to qualify as more than persiflage, it must be more than nice, it must be necessary.

 

[dlorde]

I have seen no claims (and expect to see no such claims) from the scientific community verifying with certainty through scientific method that individual consciousness does not continue on in some non physical state once the body has died.

Science will never give you certainty, but it can reassure you beyond reasonable doubt, which will have to suffice.

It's not clear what you mean by 'non-physical', but whatever it is, to be relevant to human bodies & brains, it must interact with them in some way; so to that extent it must have physical influence (otherwise you're stuck with the perennial 'interaction problem' or an appeal to 'magic').

Now if you're prepared to accept that the science behind the microprocessor in your computer, the LEDs in the little lights around the place, the laser in your DVD or Blu-Ray player (and a whole bunch of other technological wonders of the modern age) is a reasonably good approximation of how the world works (and it is - the gadgets work, don't they?), then we can say beyond reasonable doubt that consciousness doesn't continue beyond death.

That is because the same science behind those gadgets tells us that only electromagnetism has the strength, range, and specificity at human scales to interact with the cells, or atoms & molecules of the brain. And electromagnetic fields are measurable and require all kinds of extras to support informational processes like consciousness - all stuff that is conspicuously absent after death. In case the physical theory isn't enough to convince, the whole range of human scale interactions has been thoroughly explored experimentally, and the results have borne out the theory to the limits of our ability to measure (which go way beyond scales and energies relevant to human interactions). There is currently no mechanism to support consciousness independent of a living brain. Sorry.

 

[John Jones]

More accurately, all the evidence is physical and says nothing except what individual determines, and that depends on the particular beliefs of the individual, as I have already pointed out.

You have pointed out nothing except baseless claims.

Kind sir, you have a habit of describing science with no clue what the discipline of science entails. It took me a while to recall your posting habits, but I do recall them now.

In case you were going to once again present an errant description of the discipline of science, don't bother. You have never understood it.

 

[Navigator]

Brain in a jar, p zombie, and solipsim in general lead to nowhere whatsoever.

So we are in a simulation.

Now what ? You gained nothing on understanding the universe, you gained nothing in predictability power you gained nothing in advancing our condition.

All the philosophical argument you presented so far lead to the same dead end.
it is really simple : if what you present has the same predictability power as the brain-in-the-jar concept, then you have presented nothing of worth.

That's why the physical brain has a lot of predictability power, and is used all the day in medicine, biology, psychology, psychiatry.

The NDE=soul leaving or whatever other mysical crap is used nowhere except as brain wanking for that reason : it is a dead end has no predictability power and come down to the belief of the person grasping at myths to avoid admitting that death is the END with a capital E.

*WHEN* and only when you have something more to bite on, evidence and so forth, you may have a chance to convince us. Until then it is no more than puff the dragon cruising around Jupiter.

Your sore point is showing. That was quite an emotional response.

Convincing the 'us' you speak of is not an agenda of mine. If the 'us' want to believe whatever they will, then they will. That is the power of belief.