What happens after we die

[LIIA]

Didn't you get the point? It is the interpretation of these that matters. We all know they exist.

I get the point that your personal interpretations have nothing to do with the consensus of science. If you don’t agree, go ahead and demonstrate otherwise.

Your claimed “different consensus of other experts” is absolutely baseless. In fact, there is no consensus of any kind other than the fact that the NDE is a true phenomenon that is inexplicable through current paradigms of science.

After over 35 years of scholarly investigation of near-death experience, over 20 different “explanations” were already proposed but none of it was accepted as plausible explanation. Till today, there is no consensus whatsoever about how the NDEs may be explained.

The totality of what is observed in NDEs is a verified real phenomenon that continues to be inexplicable under current paradigms unless a paradigm shift emerges in light of the established powerful evidence through numerous studies.

 

[LIIA]

a) Here is a summary of the NDE facts that may help to but things in perspective:

The NDE studies confirmed the following:

-The consciousness (with unaltered self-identity) traveled to locations apart from the physical body while being clinically dead and gained knowledge of true events through verified experiences.

-The blind NDErs who are medically/scientifically impossible to see and never had any visual experience of any kind in their entire life had verified true visual experiences while being clinically dead.

Both experiences above are medically inexplicable and cannot be explained under any scenario by any known physical function of the brain (Even if the person is fully conscious).

After over 35 years of scholarly investigation of near-death experience, the totality of what is observed in NDEs has not been explained based on physical brain function.

Many “explanations” of near-death experience were proposed over the years, there have been over 20 different proposed “explanations”. If any one or several of these “explanations” were widely accepted as plausible, then there would be no need for so many different “explanations” of NDE. There is no consensus whatsoever about how physical brain function may produce NDEs.

Powerful evidence proved that NDEs are real, but the experiences are inexplicable through current paradigms of science.

b) Based on the facts above, the studies showed that our consciousness with unaltered self-identity continues to exist independently separate from the physical body with highly enhanced supernormal senses. Our physical body is not what gives rise to our consciousness/self-awareness.

Our body is only a vehicle that imposes temporary physical constraints that control the way our beings interface with the physical world/spacetime in a limited physical manner. Once the constraints are broken, we are freed from these limitations and continue to have unaltered self-identity with supernormal senses independent from the lifeless body.

The studies point to a different realm that is only known by those who experienced it and came back to tell. The only possible proof of NDEs is the confirmation of reported experiences being factual, which was already established in numerous cases beyond any doubt.

It’s understood/expected that the idea that consciousness is an independent entity that continues beyond the lifeless body would appear very radical to a typical materialistic mind, but the essence of naturalism is the principle that naturalism is intended/promoted as a “posteriori” view. It's not/should not be a commitment in advance to certain ontology. Naturalism is not an absolute commitment but rather a provisional commitment that should be open to revision even for what may be perceived as a radical kind of entities, forces or relations.

As a posteriori view, Naturalism should accommodate any conclusion driven by data no matter how radical it appears to be.

Antony Flew, one of the world's preeminent atheists stated that his rule of life had always been to follow the evidence where it leads. And he said he followed that evidence, and it led him to the conclusion that God exists. He said, "when I finally came to recognize the existence of a God, it was not a paradigm shift, because my paradigm remains..'We must follow the argument wherever it leads'.” (There is No A God. p 89)

 

[Brian2]

Think what you like, but I suspect many operate the same as myself - provide the evidence and we will naturally follow such to the correct conclusions. We are not biased as to this matter, and it is more that those who believe in these possible phenomena do have an agenda - often coming from religious beliefs - and hence will do almost anything to cling on to such beliefs. Even without any real evidence to support such.

As is frequently mentioned, if anyone did have conclusive proof then it would blow away all the cobwebs and the person doing so would be rather famous. So where is such a person?

Conclusive proof? What is that? To some, the evidence of unconscious people actually knowing what happened when they were unconscious is conclusive proof. To others it there is more to it. Nothing is going to be called conclusive proof until scientific consensus tell us I suppose.
The way I see it there is probably bias all around.
Religious people should be prepared to sit and wait for more evidence on the matter and the scientific community should able to accept the evidence as real and that there is no scientific answer for it without invoking something outside the scientific paradigm.

 

[Brian2]

There is current science that can set the foundation for such things. The second law of Thermodynamics is connected to Entropy. The Entropy of the universe has to increase.

The term entropy was first coined in the 1800's during the development of steam engines. During their many experiments there was always lost energy, that could not be accounted for using an energy balance; input did not equal output; there was X missing? The term entropy was coined to describe this lost energy. Entropy is often described as complexity and probability with complexity and probability hiding energy. It is not clear where this lost energy is since it is not exactly part of space-time; uncertainty.

When the second law says that the entropy of the universe has to increase, this means the universe is net bleeding energy via the constant increase in entropy. The universe is aging with the energy going into uncertainty.

Energy conservation tells us that energy can change form, but it cannot be destroyed. This means that although the universe is bleeding energy, that it can no longer use; 2nd law, this energy is conserved somehow or somewhere.

If you look at life and consciousness, both continually generate a lot of entropy. Inanimate matter hardly generates any. Life and Consciousness constantly adds to the pool of lost energy. When neurons fire and our memory is made conscious, this increases entropy, and adds to the pool of lost but conserved energy. The idea of an enteral soul is about our memories conserved; entropy equivalence.

Entropy does not have the units of energy. Instead E = ST, where E is energy, S is Entropy and T is Temperature. Entropy can exist at absolute zero, but energy cannot. Energy is dependent on temperature, but entropy is not. Entropy is a form of information, about a snap short in time of a given state of matter. It makes sense that our bio and neural information, that is generated with entropy, is also conserved in the pool of lost energy. The universe remembers us, based on our actions; cellular and neural activity. This has an impact on how your entropic information will pool and coagulate. Belief and faith in God is about neural activity and directed entropy generation, that pools memory around a center, so we can crystallize out again.

The Old Testament did not have this center since they believed we slept at death. The memory was there but not organized as a living soul. This changed in the New Testament; Heaven and Hell.

A bit over my head. But if that is how you understand it......

 

[Mock Turtle]

Conclusive proof? What is that? To some, the evidence of unconscious people actually knowing what happened when they were unconscious is conclusive proof. To others it there is more to it. Nothing is going to be called conclusive proof until scientific consensus tell us I suppose.
The way I see it there is probably bias all around.
Religious people should be prepared to sit and wait for more evidence on the matter and the scientific community should able to accept the evidence as real and that there is no scientific answer for it without invoking something outside the scientific paradigm.

But what goes on in our heads is unfortunately only for us to experience - for others to interpret - and by whatever means is available. Which, as of now, is not conclusive as to what is happening. As to the last, as has been commented many times, if there is something then it will be within the new 'altered' scientific paradigm. And this perhaps being the sticking point - God or no God, and that which comes with such. So as to why we tend to have two sides to this question and never the twain will meet. But science doesn't have an agenda over this.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I get the point that your personal interpretations have nothing to do with the consensus of science. If you don’t agree, go ahead and demonstrate otherwise.

Your claimed “different consensus of other experts” is absolutely baseless. In fact, there is no consensus of any kind other than the fact that the NDE is a true phenomenon that is inexplicable through current paradigms of science.

After over 35 years of scholarly investigation of near-death experience, over 20 different “explanations” were already proposed but none of it was accepted as plausible explanation. Till today, there is no consensus whatsoever about how the NDEs may be explained.

The totality of what is observed in NDEs is a verified real phenomenon that continues to be inexplicable under current paradigms unless a paradigm shift emerges in light of the established powerful evidence through numerous studies.

Fine. Let it stay as inexplicable until the TRUE reasons emerge. That is all I'm saying.

 

[Brian2]

But what goes on in our heads is unfortunately only for us to experience - for others to interpret - and by whatever means is available. Which, as of now, is not conclusive as to what is happening. As to the last, as has been commented many times, if there is something then it will be within the new 'altered' scientific paradigm. And this perhaps being the sticking point - God or no God, and that which comes with such. So as to why we tend to have two sides to this question and never the twain will meet. But science doesn't have an agenda over this.

That is what is hard to understand for many of us. When the evidence is that people who claim OBEs with their NDEs and who know verifiable events through these OBEs, showing that even though they were unconscious on the operating table, they had to also have been in other places also, that people still say that these things happened in their heads.
It defies reason.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That is what is hard to understand for many of us. When the evidence is that people who claim OBEs with their NDEs and who know verifiable events through these OBEs, showing that even though they were unconscious on the operating table, they had to also have been in other places also, that people still say that these things happened in their heads.
It defies reason.

It might and it might not. The problem is as to how much knowledge someone has before they go through such experiences - as to any such contributing to what they might experience. The same applies to children for example who 'remember' a previous life. How can one be sure as to them having no knowledge at all of the things they describe?

And the 'unconscious on the operating table' is something I have an issue with. Given that information might still be going into our heads even though we might not be conscious of such. And such might explain many things. Our hearing after all is not suddenly disabled.

 

[Brian2]

It might and it might not. The problem is as to how much knowledge someone has before they go through such experiences - as to any such contributing to what they might experience. The same applies to children for example who 'remember' a previous life. How can one be sure as to them having no knowledge at all of the things they describe?

And the 'unconscious on the operating table' is something I have an issue with. Given that information might still be going into our heads even though we might not be conscious of such. And such might explain many things. Our hearing after all is not suddenly disabled.

There would be no way that sight information would have been going in, especially descriptions of things that happened in other places.
When it comes to people who remember a previous life, I don't see that as scientific evidence and philosophically it does not fit with what I believe anyway.

 

[Mock Turtle]

There would be no way that sight information would have been going in, especially descriptions of things that happened in other places.
When it comes to people who remember a previous life, I don't see that as scientific evidence and philosophically it does not fit with what I believe anyway.

I believe tests have been done as to such and failed. So why choose the odd few that might correlate with some true happenings?

 

[Brian2]

I believe tests have been done as to such and failed. So why choose the odd few that might correlate with some true happenings?

Confirmations have been made for reported sightings in OBEs.
Tests have been done with signs being placed on top of aparatus in operating theatre. I don't know how any failure in those tests shows that the correlations are not true or should be ignored. That does not sound like good science to me.

 

[LIIA]

sit and wait for more evidence on the matter

The only possible evidence is the verification/confirmation of reported experiences which was already established in hundreds of NDE cases. No other proof is possible.

Unless we experience NDE ourselves, we can only witness this different realm through the eyes of those who experienced it. Our only option is to verify reported experiences being factual, which was already done in numerous cases.

The verification of more NDE cases wouldn’t make any difference since enough cases were already verified to confirm the phenomenon.

With respect to an explanation, the NDEs are simply physically impossible. No physical explanation of any kind may explain the verified OBE or visual experiences of the blind. Absolutely none.

without invoking something outside the scientific paradigm

What is the scientific paradigm other than conclusions driven by data?

 

[LuisDantas]

Is there more?

If religious Bob says there is heaven or hell after death and nonreligious Bill says there is nothing after death....
Aren't they both simply assuming what they don't know?

Frankly, it is just a matter of acknowledging wishful thinking for what it is.

There are a few mutually exclusive conceptions of what would exist "after death". None of them holds to objective analysis, none provides any sort of evidence, and some of the most popular would logically result in a world significantly different from ours.

There is "life after death" in the sense that other people survive us. But there is no true mystery on what happens after death; we have observed plenty of death for plenty of millennia.

 

[Brian2]

The only possible evidence is the verification/confirmation of reported experiences which was already established in hundreds of NDE cases. No other proof is possible.

Unless we experience NDE ourselves, we can only witness this different realm through the eyes of those who experienced it. Our only option is to verify reported experiences being factual, which was already done in numerous cases.

The verification of more NDE cases wouldn’t make any difference since enough cases were already verified to confirm the phenomenon.

With respect to an explanation, the NDEs are simply physically impossible. No physical explanation of any kind may explain the verified OBE or visual experiences of the blind. Absolutely none.



What is the scientific paradigm other than conclusions driven by data?

It sounds right to me that OBEs in NDEs show experiences outside the body. Science has a reluctance to jump straight into that because it is not a part of the current scientific paradigm. So science keeps wanting more evidence.
As for the existence of NDEs as such I don't think there would be any disagreement about that in science. It is just that some experiences can be brain based and others seem to be more than that. Personally I don't think that the 2 types are necessarily the same thing and of course if science can give a brain cause to anything (and not a spirit cause) that is what it will do.

 

[LIIA]

Fine. Let it stay as inexplicable until the TRUE reasons emerge. That is all I'm saying.

Not exactly, it’s only inexplicable under current paradigms but again Naturalism is a “posteriori” view, it's neither a commitment in advance to certain ontology nor an absolute commitment but rather a provisional commitment that should be open to revision even for what may be perceived as a radical kind of entities, forces or relations.

As a posteriori view, Naturalism should accommodate any conclusion driven by data no matter how radical it appears to be.

No physical explanation of any kind may explain the verified OBE or visual experiences of the blind. Absolutely none. We must follow the data wherever it leads even if it means a paradigm shift.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Not exactly, it’s only inexplicable under current paradigms but again Naturalism is a “posteriori” view, it's neither a commitment in advance to certain ontology nor an absolute commitment but rather a provisional commitment that should be open to revision even for what may be perceived as a radical kind of entities, forces or relations.

As a posteriori view, Naturalism should accommodate any conclusion driven by data no matter how radical it appears to be.

No physical explanation of any kind may explain the verified OBE or visual experiences of the blind. Absolutely none. We must follow the data wherever it leads even if it means a paradigm shift.

And I would counter - best not to follow the path that we might want to be on rather than the truthful one.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Confirmations have been made for reported sightings in OBEs.
Tests have been done with signs being placed on top of aparatus in operating theatre. I don't know how any failure in those tests shows that the correlations are not true or should be ignored. That does not sound like good science to me.

Probably not enough, and is why they are rejected. The main issues with NDEs and OBEs is that they are common, often can be induced by various means, and likely do have sufficient explanations as to such without resorting to the claims of the paranormalists.

 

[LIIA]

And I would counter - best not to follow the path that we might want to be on rather than the truthful one.

Exactly, we should not force conclusions to fit a specific paradigm and ignore the verified data that is logically leading us to a different direction. IOW, our implementation of the naturalistic posteriori view shouldn’t be a commitment to a priori.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Exactly, we should not force conclusions to fit a specific paradigm and ignore the verified data that is logically leading us to a different direction. IOW, our implementation of the naturalistic posteriori view shouldn’t be a commitment to a priori.

I don't have any such wants. You?

 

[LIIA]

I don't have any such wants. You?

Not true, you’re committed to a priori. In your mind, you established limits/boundaries defining a paradigm, you don’t want to step beyond these limits. Everything must fit within.