Near death experiences

[Jadamas]

Do NDEs prove that an afterlife exists?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Do NDEs prove that an afterlife exists?

It may or it may not. Complete brain death along with successful resuscitation and a coherent and complete account of a post death experience would indicate a phenomenon but an afterlife? Not sure.

 

[viole]

Do NDEs prove that an afterlife exists?

"Near death" means: "near end of life", not "after end of life". Ergo, they are still life experiences.

For this reason, they provide the same evidence of afterlife as a normal dream.

Ciao

- viole

 

[George-ananda]

Do NDEs prove that an afterlife exists?

The word 'prove' is problematic and probably shouldn't be used in discussions of the paranormal/spiritual.

That said, I think the NDE is very strongly suggestive of an afterlife. I think what are particularly suggestive are those that are called 'veridical NDEs', where the experiencer returns to normal consciousness with knowledge of events and things that could not have reasonably been learned through 'normal' methods, such as knowing trivial things that occurred claiming to have been observed from an outside the body perspective at a time when no higher brain functioning was occurring.

Edit: Also I'd like to add that the NDE is consistent with what is held in major eastern and western esoteric traditions, in that we have interpenetrating astral and mental bodies with the physical body and that at death the physical permanently separates from the higher bodies and the higher bodies continue on with unbroken experiencing.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I've had two actual near-death experiences, where I very nearly lost my life in the frame of a few seconds. All the rest, as mentioned, are not really NDEs since they can't have been definitively described as being dead at the time. And the definition of death has changed as we get to know more about the processes we undergo during death. Presumably parts of us die quicker than other parts. What the brain produces during such experiences can often be explained.

 

[George-ananda]

For this reason, they provide the same evidence of afterlife as a normal dream.

Just a couple reasons why I believe the NDE provides more evidence of the afterlife than normal dreams,

1) NDEs are held to occur at times of severe brain trauma and even in times where no higher brain functioning is occurring. That is quite more intriguing than the case with dreams.

2) The veridical NDEs (as mentioned in my above post),

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Do NDEs prove that an afterlife exists?

No. We dont know coincidences; but, a lot of the source of those experiences are medically sound. It really depends on a persons belief system. I dont expect people who never heard of christianity to see jesus.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do NDEs prove that an afterlife exists?

No. The experience has already been re-recreated.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I've had two actual near-death experiences, where I very nearly lost my life in the frame of a few seconds. All the rest, as mentioned, are not really NDEs since they can't have been definitively described as being dead at the time. And the definition of death has changed as we get to know more about the processes we undergo during death. Presumably parts of us die quicker than other parts. What the brain produces during such experiences can often be explained.

True.
Death has no experiencer.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Do NDEs prove that an afterlife exists?

No.

(Sorry for the verbose response.)

 

[viole]

Just a couple reasons why I believe the NDE provides more evidence of the afterlife than normal dreams,

1) NDEs are held to occur at times of severe brain trauma and even in times where no higher brain functioning is occurring. That is quite more intriguing than the case with dreams.

Sure. The one who experienced that, took his watch with him in the afterlife, and that watch was perfectly synchronized with the clocks in the hospital that measured low or no brain activity exactly at the time of the experience. So, it was just a matter of simple double check to prove synchronicity.

I can imagine the evidence:

Patient: I saw a bright light. Angels and stuff. Also my grandma was there. And her dog, too.
Doctor: When did you experience that?
Patient: At 15:30. According to my (spiritual) watch.
Doctor: That is exactly when you had no brain activity!
All: Behold, afterlife exists!

Your bar on the paranormal is pretty low, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

 

[George-ananda]

Sure. The one who experienced that, took his watch with him in the afterlife, and that watch was perfectly synchronized with the clocks in the hospital who measured low or no brain activity exactly at the time of the experience. So, it is obvious that these events were synchronous.

I can imagine the evidence:

Doctor: When did you experience that?
Patient: At 15:30
Doctor: That is exactly when you had no brain activity!
All: Behold, afterlife exists!

Your bar on the paranormal is pretty low, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

It appears you underestimate my bar. I am aware of your challenge and must ask whether knowing some trivial real world events that occurred at 5:30 not up the intrigue factor? By now, I have heard many such cases.

 

[viole]

It appears you underestimate my bar. I am aware of your challenge and must ask whether knowing some trivial real world events that occurred at 5:30 not up the intrigue factor? By now, I have heard many such cases.

I am sure you did. I also heard a lot of people who dream of demons in their room short before they get into REM.

Is that evidence that there are such things a demons?

Probably, but only for people who highly desire that demons exist, and lower therefore their bar on the evidence. Same thing with the afterlife.

Ciao

- viole

 

[George-ananda]

I am sure you did. I also heard a lot of people who dream of demons in their room short before they get into REM.

Is that evidence that there are such things a demons?

Probably, but only for people who highly desire that demons exist, and lower therefore their bar on the evidence. Same thing with the afterlife.

Ciao

- viole

Well, I am impressed by many of the veridical NDE stories I have heard after considering the quantity, quality and consistency of these types of experiences. These ‘veridical’ cases have an objective aspect demon dreams do not.

And I believe that many NDE skeptics have taken such a rigid anti-paranormal stance that they don’t want to even give the veridical stories their fair hearing. My honest opinion.

To change the subject I also have come to believe in the existence of other non-physical entities that may be called by whatever names and these may be experienced in the sleep and the borderline sleep/awake state.

 

[viole]

Well, I am impressed by many of the veridical NDE stories I have heard after considering the quantity, quality and consistency of these types of experiences. These ‘veridical’ cases have an objective aspect demon dreams do not.

And I believe that many NDE skeptics have taken such a rigid anti-paranormal stance that they don’t want to even give the stories their fair hearing. My honest opinion.

To change the subject I also have come to believe in the existence of other non-physical entities that may be called by whatever names and these may be experienced in the sleep and the borderline sleep/awake state.

We are not rigid, nor close mindedness. It is just that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And at present we cannot even speak of ordinary evidence, for what concerns the paranormal. Believe me. There is nothing, really.

But if you like to believe in demons, mares and such. Go ahead. As long as these demons are not against gay marriage, abortion, evolution teaching, unbelievers and such, I am fine with that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[George-ananda]

We are not rigid, nor close mindedness. It is just that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And at present we cannot even speak of ordinary evidence, for what concerns the paranormal. Believe me. There is nothing, really.

I am not doing science here but determining what is most reasonable to believe considering the evidence and argumentation from all schools of thought.

I believe science is great but limited in what it can know at this time in its development. Actually I even think it is good that science moves conservatively. I consider challenging evidence and even other wisdom traditions too though in forming my personal worldview.

It sounds like you are coming from the position that has been called ‘scientism’ (not that I want to restart that debate again).

 

[viole]

I am not doing science here but determining what is most reasonable to believe considering the evidence and argumentation from all schools of thought.

I believe science is great but limited in what it can know at this time in its development. Actually I even think it is good that science moves conservatively. I consider challenging evidence and even other wisdom traditions too though in forming my personal worldview.

It sounds like you are coming from the position that has been called ‘scientism’ (not that I want to restart that debate again).

Since I am a metaphysical naturalist, I think that the only way to infer truths about the universe is to assume naturalism as a premise. Science does that by assuming naturalism in its methodology. And its success strengthens the assumption.

That does not entail that science can discover everything. It entails that everything that we can possibly discover can only be done by means of the scientific method.

But why are you asking that? Would you not be happy if the paranormal were vindicated by pure scientific methods? Or are you losing any hope that the paranormal can ever be confirmed by science?

If I were you, I would fear the latter, given the current objective evidence of the paranormal. And therefore I would try to undermine science, as the sole epistemology to find truths.

Good luck with that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[George-ananda]

Since I am a metaphysical naturalist, I think that the only way to infer truths about the universe is to assume naturalism as a premise. Science does that by assuming naturalism in its methodology. And its success strengthens the assumption.

That does not entail that science can discover everything. It entails that everything that we can possibly discover can only be done by means of the scientific method.

OK, so what this comes to is if there is a greater reality beyond the so-called physical (not directly detectable at this time by the physical senses and instruments) then we just can not know about it.

I hold that we all to some extent also have psychic (non-physical) senses that can tell us about reality but are not under the fine control that we have of the physical senses and instruments. I believe scientifically controlled studies have established by fantastic odds against chance abilities that we have sensory abilities that expose the dramatic incompleteness of the 'physical-only' model of reality. Controlled studies are science to me right there. Observation can precede understanding in the world of science. From there we can look at explanatory theories as to what may be happening. And I believe eastern (Vedic) and western esoteric psychic sources have presented a model of reality beyond the physical that best makes sense of the phenomena that the physical-only model can not explain.

But why are you asking that? Would you not be happy if the paranormal were vindicated by pure scientific methods? Or are you losing any hope that the paranormal can ever be confirmed by science?

I believe science of the future will discover what we now call paranormal phenomena as part and parcel of a greater reality. But science will need instruments that can reliably sense things beyond our familiar three-dimensional physical plane.

If I were you, I would fear the latter, given the current objective evidence of the paranormal. And therefore I would try to undermine science, as the sole epistemology to find truths.

Well after decades of study of the paranormal I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt of the incompleteness of the current physical-only worldview. And that there are other models based on extra-sensory observation that actually make sense of phenomena the hardcore materialist denies ever even occurs.

 

[viole]

OK, so what this comes to is if there is a greater reality beyond the so-called physical (not directly detectable at this time by the physical senses and instruments) then we just can not know about it.

I hold that we all to some extent also have psychic (non-physical) senses that can tell us about reality but are not under the fine control that we have of the physical senses and instruments. I believe scientifically controlled studies have established by fantastic odds against chance abilities that we have sensory abilities that expose the dramatic incompleteness of the 'physical-only' model of reality. Controlled studies are science to me right there. Observation can precede understanding in the world of science. From there we can look at explanatory theories as to what may be happening. And I believe eastern (Vedic) and western esoteric psychic sources have presented a model of reality beyond the physical that best makes sense of the phenomena that the physical-only model can not explain.

I believe science of the future will discover what we now call paranormal phenomena as part and parcel of a greater reality. But science will need instruments that can reliably sense things beyond our familiar three-dimensional physical plane.


Well after decades of study of the paranormal I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt of the incompleteness of the current physical-only worldview. And that there are other models based on extra-sensory observation that actually make sense of phenomena the hardcore materialist denies ever even occurs.

True. Science is by definition not capable of analyzing things that do not submit to methodological naturalism. However, we have no evidence that such things exist. So, as long as that there is no evidence of extra-natural things, I will be a confident naturalist.

But you might right. Come back to me when iPhones have telepathic functionalities, instead of that stupid SIRI that understands a fraction of what I say.
Until that point I will safely dismiss the paranormal as yet another version of wishful thinking.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jainarayan]

"Near death" means: "near end of life", not "after end of life". Ergo, they are still life experiences.

For this reason, they provide the same evidence of afterlife as a normal dream.

Ciao

- viole

Logical. Flawlessly logical.