Evidence that Consciousness Survives Bodily Death?

[Sam26]

Going way back to the start of the topic:

The first question is, what makes a strong inductive argument? As many of you know, the criteria for a good inductive argument is much different than the criteria of a good deductive argument. The criteria of a good inductive argument are as follows:

(1) number
(2) variety
(3) scope of the conclusion
(4) truth of the premises
(5) cogency

I think there's something missing from here. An inductive argument is a process of proposing a generalization from a pattern spotted in specific observations. There can be many possible generalizations that fit the same pattern in the same set of observations. That seems to be the part that's missing. The challenge then is deciding between all of the generalizations that fit the pattern.

In this case, the generalization is the proposition: "Consciousness survives the death of the body". But there are other possible generalizations that fit the same set of observations and which hinge on the fact that human brains are broadly similar the world over and can therefore be expected to have broadly similar psychological needs and desires and to undergo broadly similar physical processes in similar situations, such as being near to death.

That being the case, a large number of people who claim to have had NDE's (1) from a large variety of cultures (2) doesn't support the proposition "consciousness survives the death of the body" any more than it supports other propositions that are based on similarities in the psychological makeup of all humans.

It's much more than psychological similarities, it's the accuracy of the reports while claiming to be outside the body, in some cases, where there is no measurable brain activity. Moreover, what you're saying could be applied to almost any testimonial report, even those we know are accurate. I.e., if I disagree with any testimonial report I could use the same argument, which for me, demonstrates that the objection fails.

It's what their reporting that supports the generalization. Their reports, in most cases, are reports that indicate that consciousness is more than brain activity. For example, an interesting study done by Dr. Michael Sabom which looked at the accuracy of NDErs claims while observing their own resuscitations during cardiac arrest. The testimony of NDErs was compared with a control group who did not claim to have an NDE. Sabom concluded that the NDErs descriptions of the resuscitations were much more accurate than the control group.

Another study by Dr. Penny Sartori also found that when comparing NDErs descriptions of their resuscitations, which were highly accurate, with a control group descriptions of their resuscitations, the control groups were very inaccurate and would often guess at what happened.

Here's a also some supporting data about the consistency of the reports.

This is an updated version of the Greyson's NDE scale (http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Greyson/Greyson-The%20Journal%20of%20Nervous%20and%20Mental%20Disease_1983-171-369-375.pdf), which helps to develop the internal consistency of the NDE reports. The original research was done in the early 80's by Greyson. Greyson's scale was updated and reassessed in 2020 (https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-stu ... E-C-CC.pdf). This updated version continues to point to the internal consistency of the NDEs, which is important to the argument I make in this thread.

[Steve3007]

This is an updated version of the Greyson's NDE scale (http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Greyson/Greyson-The%20Journal%20of%20Nervous%20and%20Mental%20Disease_1983-171-369-375.pdf), which helps to develop the internal consistency of the NDE reports. The original research was done in the early 80's by Greyson. Greyson's scale was updated and reassessed in 2020 (https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-stu ... E-C-CC.pdf). This updated version continues to point to the internal consistency of the NDEs, which is important to the argument I make in this thread.

It would take a while to read through that paper. I'll see if I can find the time. The key question would, of course, be:

Can it be demonstrated that people who are brain dead, and therefore have no physical means to sense and process events in the physical world, have done so? To demonstrate that it would have to be shown that the events they describe definitely happened when their brain was dead and that the perceptions they describe couldn't have been received in that conventional physical way, and that it would be extremely unlikely that they could guess the events or extrapolate from events that they have perceived in the conventional way.

Obviously you'd stated many times that this is the case. Whether it really is the case - maybe that'll become clear on reading the paper that you've cited.

[Sculptor1]

My claim is that there is sufficient testimonial evidence to reasonably conclude that consciousness survives the death of the body. In other words, I'm making the claim that I know the conclusion is true. And although I believe that I could make other claims based on the evidence, i.e., claims of knowledge, I'm limiting the scope of the conclusion. By limited, I mean I'm not trying to give evidence of a god, heaven, that we are eternal beings, or any other spiritual or religious idea; nor am I trying to give evidence of many of the other claims people are making while having such an experience. Although I do believe there is strong evidence to support other conclusions, and these conclusions have varying degrees of certainty, just as many of our everyday rational conclusions have varying degrees of certainty.

The first question is, what makes a strong inductive argument? As many of you know, the criteria for a good inductive argument is much different than the criteria of a good deductive argument. The criteria of a good inductive argument are as follows:

(1) number
(2) variety
(3) scope of the conclusion
(4) truth of the premises
(5) cogency

First, number. It seems rather obvious that if you have a greater number of testimonials that say X happened, then the stronger the argument. This does not mean that the conclusion relies solely on numbers, because numbers in themselves are not sufficient.

Second, variety. The greater the variety of cases cited the stronger the conclusion. Remember that when examining the conclusion of an inductive argument, the conclusion is either strong or weak, which is much different from a good deductive argument, where the conclusion follows with absolute necessity. The difference being what is probably or likely the case (inductive arguments), verses what necessarily follows (deductive arguments).

Third, scope of the conclusion. This has already been covered briefly in the opening paragraph. It means that the less the conclusion claims the stronger the argument. In other words, conclusions that are broad in scope are much are generally harder to defend. A conclusion that is limited in scope is easier to defend.

Fourth, truth of the premises. Clearly this means that the premises must be true, which by the way, is the same criteria that makes a good deductive argument, i.e., a good deductive argument must be sound (soundness has to do with whether the deductive argument is valid, plus the premises must be true).

(4a) Also, since we are dealing with testimonial evidence, in order to know if the testimonial evidence is true we need corroboration, i.e., we need an objective way to verify some of the testimonial evidence. This helps to establish the truth of the testimonial evidence, and since the evidence is testimonial evidence, it helps to establish the fourth criteria of a good inductive argument, viz., the truth of the premises.

(4b) Another important factor in determining the truth of testimonial evidence is firsthand testimony, as opposed to hearsay or secondhand testimony. Firsthand testimony is stronger than hearsay or second-hand testimony, all things being equal.

(4c) Consistency of the reports is another important criterion in terms of getting to the truth. However, testimonial evidence does not have to be perfectly consistent to be credible. When dealing with a large number of reports you will inevitably find some inconsistency. So, inconsistency itself is not enough to rule out the reports unless the inconsistency is widespread, and of such a number that it affects the quality and number of consistent reports. So although consistency is important, it must be looked at in terms of the overall picture.

Fifth is cogency. You rarely here this criteria, but it's very important in terms of effectiveness. Any argument's (deductive or inductive) effectiveness is going to be based on whether the person to whom the argument is given, knows the premises are true. For example, if I give the following argument:

The base of a souffle is a roux.
This salmon dish is a souffle.
Hence, the base of this salmon dish is a roux.

If you do not know what a souffle or a roux is, then you do not know if the premises are true, so how would you know if the conclusion is true. You may know that the argument is valid based on its form, but you would not know if the premises are true. Thus, you would not know if it is sound. For any argument to be effective, you have to know if the premises are true; and since knowledge varies from person to person, an arguments effectiveness is going to vary from person to person.

I will give the actual argument in my next post based on these criteria.

Your claim is false as there is zero unabiguous evidence. If such a thing were the case, enough to make that claim then there would need to be at least one unequivocal peice of evidence to support such a claim; there is not.
You grasp of French cuisine does not support your claim in any sense.

[Sculptor1]

Okay, I’m confused. I see evidence that consciousness survives NDE’s. I don’t see evidence that consciousness survives death. None of the people that reported NDE’s were, um, dead.

*

I think the lesson to take home here is the "N" in the phrase NDE.
Near is near.
Near is not dead.

[Sam26]

This is an updated version of the Greyson's NDE scale (http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Greyson/Greyson-The%20Journal%20of%20Nervous%20and%20Mental%20Disease_1983-171-369-375.pdf), which helps to develop the internal consistency of the NDE reports. The original research was done in the early 80's by Greyson. Greyson's scale was updated and reassessed in 2020 (https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-stu ... E-C-CC.pdf). This updated version continues to point to the internal consistency of the NDEs, which is important to the argument I make in this thread.

It would take a while to read through that paper. I'll see if I can find the time. The key question would, of course, be:

Can it be demonstrated that people who are brain dead, and therefore have no physical means to sense and process events in the physical world, have done so? To demonstrate that it would have to be shown that the events they describe definitely happened when their brain was dead and that the perceptions they describe couldn't have been received in that conventional physical way, and that it would be extremely unlikely that they could guess the events or extrapolate from events that they have perceived in the conventional way.

Obviously you'd stated many times that this is the case. Whether it really is the case - maybe that'll become clear on reading the paper that you've cited.

The following NDE is probably one of the best examples of someone who has no brain activity having an NDE. Unfortunately they're not of the best quality.

Pam's nde, part 1 and 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNbdUEqDB-k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osfIY4B3y1U

Here's another thread that I started in Philosophyforums a while ago, it's many more pages long with much more information.

Another link of a blind person having an NDE (blind from birth).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rFW2lc3344

[Sam26]

The link to the other thread I started a few years ago. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... he-body/p1

[Consul]

The following NDE is probably one of the best examples of someone who has no brain activity having an NDE. Unfortunately they're not of the best quality.

Pam's nde, part 1 and 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNbdUEqDB-k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osfIY4B3y1U

QUOTE>
"…the most famous case is undoubtedly that of Pam Reynolds who, back in 1991, reported an apparently veridical OBE after her brain was cooled and her heart deliberately stopped to remove an aneurysm from her brain. This has attracted more debate than any other, both constructive and pointless, since its first publication by Michael Sabom (1998). Some excellent recent reviews discuss what she actually said, what happened in the operating theatre, the state of her brain at the time and whether any experiences or memory would be expected in the circumstances (Augustine, 2007a, Woerlee, 2005 a, b, 2011, French, 2009, Palmer, 2009).

In the end, as so often happens, this case comes down to one question – when did her OBE occur? Was it when there was no activity being recorded from her brain or was it before or after this state? Augustine (2007a) constructed a helpful timeline based on Sabom’s original text, which seems to show that her OBE happened well before her induced cardiac arrest, when she was anaesthetised but not clinically dead, a conclusion then challenged by Sabom (2007). Personally, I am most impressed by the view of John Palmer, a parapsychologist and believer whom I have known since the 1980s. Even he concludes, ‘we cannot be confident that any of these experiences in fact occurred during the part of the procedure in which Pam was clinically dead’ (Palmer, 2009, p.166).

Timing is critical. So how could Pim van Lommel and his team write, in that most respected peer-reviewed journal, The Lancet, ‘this patient proved to have had a very deep NDE, including an out-of-body experience, with subsequently verified observations during the period of the flat EEG’ (my italics, van Lommel et al., 2001, p. 2044)? Whatever the truth of the Pam Reynolds’ case, this claim about verification is untrue."

(Blackmore, Susan J. Seeing Myself: The New Science of Out-of-Body Experiences. London: Robinson, 2017.)
<QUOTE

[Papus79]

I think the better circumstantial evidence, outside of the seeming strength of corroborated details when people describe near-local events out of body, is someone taking on something as is common like 360° spherical vision when we have no neurological coding or capacity to support that kind of experience.

I think it's true that if something like Sam Parnia's OR room targets were hit this would then be in open/shut territory much like lucid dreaming is now. The trouble with NDE's is really that they can't be called on demand. The other thing I'd estimate, from having listened to as many NDE interviews now as I have, the content is almost propagandistic, it reminds me of something that Andres Gomez Emilsson was saying about universal Darwinism in the context of either a panpsychist or absolute idealist universe if it were a situation of no strong 'universal mind' holding things together and something much more like emergent processes. To me that makes sense as well from the perspective that any place not ordered by something like absolute power, where it has conscious agents interacting, seems like it should end up with Darwinian game theory of some kind occurring.

[Sy Borg]

Consul made a highly perceptive post in consciousness without a brain thread that I think is worth repeating here.

The crucial timing problem concerning the question when exactly NDEs happen hasn't really been solved, and the imperfect measurement instruments used such as EEG cannot rule out the possibility that there is still electrical activity somewhere in the brain that remains undetected by them; so a flat (isoelectric) EEG doesn't necessarily mean that there is no neural activity left.

Anyway, the assertion that there can be conscious states during a temporary brain death is self-undermining, because if the brain of someone undergoing an NDE were completely "dead", i.e. 100% neurally inactive, then no NDE memories could be formed and stored, since memory traces require neural processes. Therefore, nobody having undergone an NDE during a temporary brain death could possibly recall it. But those claiming to have undergone an NDE allegedly do recall it, so they cannot be right if their NDEs took place when their brains were dead. For if there occurred NDEs during a temporary brain death, nobody could possibly have any recollective memories of them, since the forming and storing of memories require an electrochemically active, functioning brain. Veridical NDE memories (which aren't posterior confabulations) cannot have been formed when there was no neural activity in their brains. It follows that if there really occurred conscious states during a temporary brain death, they would be unrecallable and thus unknowable in principle!

If you need memory to remember an NDE then clearly the brain must have been working during the experience. I agree with Gertie. You nailed it.

If there are no extra dimensions or interesting spooky or unexpected aspects to existence, then afterlives will exist in the final few minutes of brain oxygen.

This is not so bad. Some people have amazing subjective experiences in this window (sure beats acutely experiencing one's pain and nausea). If there is significant compression of information in a dying brain, then there may well be a subjective effect of time dilation. When one is at the endpoint of terminal illness, the subjective is all that matters, so it might seem like a substantial afterlife even if, while the fireworks are happening, everyone around you just sees you as a body to be briefly mourned before being hygienically transported to a morgue.

[Tegularius]

Brain death IS death. There is no such thing as temporary that one may recover from when brain death occurs.

[mystery]

Sam, do you also believe that the consciousness predates the body and exists before conception?

If the consciousness continues, how long does it do so, moments, years, or eternity?

Do you believe that the consciousness of the recently dead can and will visit the subconscious dream state of the living?

Serious questions; to catch your idea completely. Instead of trying to do many years of study same as you, will just ask you to tell what you have figured out.

--
Others I know and myself have had dreams that are very real and perceive to be even a lifetime of events. The things we can report from these dreams are simply amazing and I can not explain much of it. From solving real-world problems to speaking with spirits of children that died before birth. Fighting demons in a place and then later visit the same for the first time and find human demons and great struggles of unexpected intensity. There are wavelengths of energy that are all around. Prove it, deductively or inductively, no... But I support the premiss you bring, but to prove it, can not.

[Consul]

Brain death IS death. There is no such thing as temporary that one may recover from when brain death occurs.

You may use the words "standstill" or "breakdown" instead of "death".

[Consul]

Brain death IS death. There is no such thing as temporary that one may recover from when brain death occurs.

You may use the words "standstill" or "breakdown" instead of "death".

According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, one meaning of "death" is "the state or condition of being without…activity". So the phrase "brain death" can be read as "the brain's state of total inactivity"; and this brain state is either reversible or irreversible.

[Tegularius]

Brain death IS death. There is no such thing as temporary that one may recover from when brain death occurs.

You may use the words "standstill" or "breakdown" instead of "death".

According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, one meaning of "death" is "the state or condition of being without…activity". So the phrase "brain death" can be read as "the brain's state of total inactivity"; and this brain state is either reversible or irreversible.

Not really! You're attempting to make the dictionary entry conform with your argument. It's true that brain death means total inactivity and as such, cannot be denoted as anything else being final, a one-way street to oblivion.

I know what you're trying to say and it makes sense...though some things one can discuss separately...but not in the context of brain death which is exactly what it sounds like. Deep coma would have better served your description as something one may or may not recover from.

What does "brain death" mean?

Brain death is a legal definition of death. It is the complete stopping of all brain function and cannot be reversed. It means that, because of extreme and serious trauma or injury to the brain, the body's blood supply to the brain is blocked, and the brain dies. Brain death is death. It is permanent.

https://www.kidney.org/atoz/content/braindeath

https://www.webmd.com/brain/news/201401 ... n-dead-faq

Comparing brain death to coma...

Coma

A coma is a deep state of eyes-closed unconsciousness where a person is not able to respond to people or the environment around them. In a coma, a patient is alive and there is some brain activity. Depending on the severity of the injury, recovery time varies and comas can be temporary or permanent.

Patients in a coma might have brain stem responses, spontaneous breathing and/or non-purposeful motor responses. Coma has three possible outcomes: progression to brain death, recovery of consciousness, or evolution to a state of chronically depressed consciousness, such as a vegetative state.

Patients in comas are not considered for organ, eye, or tissue donation.

Brain Death

Brain Death is death. No brain function exists. Brain death results from swelling in the brain; blood flow in the brain ceases and without blood to oxygenate the cells, the tissue dies. It is irreversible. Once brain tissue dies, there is nothing that can be done to heal it.

The brain performs many functions, including thought, movement and all the neurological functions that allow the body to maintain blood pressure, heart rate, body temperature, hormones, breathing, etc. When a person deteriorates to brain death, the body’s entire system stops. You cannot breathe, your heart cannot beat and your body cannot function once your brain dies. Massive artificial medical measures must be started to maintain organ function (such as ventilated support), but these interventions are only a temporary measure.

https://www.life-source.org/latest/what ... ain-death/

[Sy Borg]

It's common for dying people to slip in and out of coma states.