Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Eric, let me see if I can explain about the imaginary mode and the experiences therein this way. You are presenting two alternative possibilities:

1)a The things we perceive in psychic perception literally exist. Thus, when we experience the presence of a God or Goddess, we are literally communicating with that deity, who is a literal, actual person distinct from ourselves. 1)b When we seem to be communicating with the departed spirit of Grandpa, that's literally what we're doing.

There are two parts to this proposal. To the first I would say, maybe; though such a deity as "a God" would not be "God," which is not one divine person among many such persons, but "a god" (but, who knows? Your possibility #3 seems to me more likely to apply to 1a). To communicate directly with "God," all we have to do is go silent and pray or meditate.

To the second, we may be communicating with the departed spirit (it can happen, and might happen). Can it be scientifically proven that we did? I don't know. Are there cases where we thought we were, but weren't? Undoubtedly.

2) The things we perceive in psychic perception are all in our heads and refer to nothing real.

But these are not the only two possibilities. Here's a third, which I believe to be the case.

3) The things we perceive in psychic perceptions are often symbols, ways that our unconscious minds express information coming to us by psychic means. We connect with something real in these experiences, something outside ourselves, but the actual images and ideas that arise in our mind often have a metaphorical rather than a literal connection with that reality.

If you believe that to be the case, that is your perogative; based on the best evidence you have and your preferred worldview. You say it is far more likely; I say I have overwhelming evidence that #1b happens. Your "money" for example is on the idea that after-death or near-death experiences happen when the brain is still alive or coming back; I have my "money" on the idea that they happen when the brain is dead and they are real, and not symbolic of a psi experience in the brain happening by means of probability shifts. We have made our mutual choices based on the evidence and worldviews that we have.

In my view, #3 is symbolic experience, which is often meaningful and insightful; I deal with symbols all the time. That would not be contacting spirits or other minds though; in that case we would not be experiencing an image or symbol of it, but experiencing and perceiving directly the spirit itself, which literally exists as fully as you or I do now. So, #1 applies.

But then, who are you? Who am I? Are we ourselves just symbols and images? Some people might ask us that..... God knows

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, that's not true. And it's not "distinct from psychic impressions." Eric, no offense, but you need more actual experience DOING this stuff if you're going to properly understand it.

I've had some experience with it. Less so with spirit communication.

I see remote viewing as a specific practice, very deliberate, as opposed to people having psychic impressions. Most people don't practice remote viewing; many people have had psychic impressions. Psychics and mediums, even if professional, do not use remote viewing.

Second, I was referring to your motivations, not to the state of reality. Your desire here is to believe that the things you're talking about are evidenced by psi phenomena, and that's why my model doesn't "work" for you.

No, I don't need evidence for psi phenomena to provide evidence for spirit communication or the afterlife. The one doesn't prove the other. Sorry if I somehow implied so. They both independently prove the existence of the psyche or soul.

You need to be clear what you mean by a "spiritual explanation." Sometimes you seem to be talking about spirituality when you say that, and at other times about a belief in ghosties. These are not the same thing, even though depending on context you can slap the same tag on them. We have no reason to believe in ghosties.

Why do you have such a patronizing attitude toward ghosts? And you even disparage them by calling them ghosties. That seems unfair.

Taking my tongue fully out of my check, let me be clear again what I said; spirits and ghosts are both spiritual realities that I am open to and think there's good evidence for (scientific or anecdotal), and you are (as far as I can describe it) not open to, or you think can be explained as symbols of some kind of psychic impression of something; I'm not clear on what you think that something is.

The domain of science, is that aspect of reality which its method is equipped to deal with only, and it's good and necessary to use it in those cases. I understand your model of "observable" phenomena; I stick by my statement in my previous post.

And that which is everything is nothing in particular.

I hesitate to open this can of worms again!

But I had mentioned this quote of yours some pages back, before you returned, as a landmark quote of yours.

(did I have a psychic impression that you were returning?)(if you watched the Sheldrake video I posted today, you'll get the reference)

I have a different view, as I mentioned then. Individual souls, and all other things in various degrees, are holons. That is like a hologram or a fractile, in which you can take one part of it, and see the whole in it. We are those parts. We are microcosms, in the older hermetic sense. In the hermetic and holographic view, which is the best one available now IMO, everything in particular IS, in fact, everything. And that which is everything, IS everything in particular, because every particular reflects the whole. One, and many, and each one of the many, is one with itself, and one with the whole, and contains the whole in itself.

"And if you listen very hard
The tune will come to you at last.
When all are one and one is all"

-- Robert Plant

Consciousness is everything! Our challenge is to keep the spirit alive.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Are there cases where we thought we were, but weren't? Undoubtedly.

Undoubtedly? How would we determine that we had been mistaken?

That's essentially my point here: this idea is unfalsifiable. We not only have no evidence that it's happening, but we never will and never can. (Which also means we can never have evidence that it isn't happening. But that is not a point in its favor; just the opposite.)

I have overwhelming evidence that #1b happens.

Share it with us, please. Seems to me that, as I said, this is unfalsifiable, which means there can never be any evidence in its favor (or against it).

Your "money" for example is on the idea that after-death or near-death experiences happen when the brain is still alive or coming back;

Well, no. I am almost completely certain of that. I said my money was on the first: that it happens while the brain approaches death, rather than on the way towards resuscitation. I'm not sure if I can articulate why I think that more likely, though, so it really is a bet, like something thrown down on a game of chance.

In order to believe that it happens while the brain is actually dead, I'd have to not only believe there is some vehicle of experience that can replace an active brain, but then also believe that somehow this vehicle can impart memories of these experiences to the brain so that they can be reported when the person comes to. I can't think of any likely candidates for this function, which doesn't mean there can't possibly be one, but it does mean that when a perfectly good explanation for the experience already exists that requires no such assumption, it's to be preferred as long as no data make it unsuitable. And we have one: as brain death approaches (or perhaps as the brain revives from inactivity), sometimes a person undergoes this experience with certain common features.

Occam's Razor. A useful tool.

We have made our mutual choices based on the evidence and worldviews that we have.

Yeah, I made mine on the evidence, and you made yours on your worldview. I prefer to have my worldview determined by the evidence, thanks.

But then, who are you? Who am I? Are we ourselves just symbols and images? Some people might ask us that..... God knows

That's certainly a good question, but since it has nothing to do with what we were talking about, I have to regard it as no more than a distraction. Nice try, though.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Undoubtedly? How would we determine that we had been mistaken?

Maybe we can't, to a scientific skeptic's satisfaction. But we could try it again, and get a clearer perception; and elicit details only grandpa would know.

That's essentially my point here: this idea is unfalsifiable. We not only have no evidence that it's happening, but we never will and never can. (Which also means we can never have evidence that it isn't happening. But that is not a point in its favor; just the opposite.)

Maybe for the scientist of a certain belief system. Other scientists say there's evidence. And even if science can't falsify the claim, experience can falsify it, or circumstantial evidence can falsify it. I am not the one to agree that "if science says this is a fact, it's a fact; otherwise it's not." That's just too limited. Science itself is limited.

Share it with us, please. Seems to me that, as I said, this is unfalsifiable, which means there can never be any evidence in its favor (or against it).

I have, and so have others, on this very thread. I'm sure I can provide more. But you may say it is invalid anyway. There are legions of reports of NDEs, OBEs, spirit communications, reincarnations; so many that it would take the rest of my life to list them here. And there are scientists studying it, showing the effects, which you reinterpret to fit your model.

Well, no. I am almost completely certain of that. I said my money was on the first: that it happens while the brain approaches death, rather than on the way towards resuscitation. I'm not sure if I can articulate why I think that more likely, though, so it really is a bet, like something thrown down on a game of chance.

In order to believe that it happens while the brain is actually dead, I'd have to not only believe there is some vehicle of experience that can replace an active brain, but then also believe that somehow this vehicle can impart memories of these experiences to the brain so that they can be reported when the person comes to. I can't think of any likely candidates for this function, which doesn't mean there can't possibly be one, but it does mean that when a perfectly good explanation for the experience already exists that requires no such assumption, it's to be preferred as long as no data make it unsuitable. And we have one: as brain death approaches (or perhaps as the brain revives from inactivity), sometimes a person undergoes this experience with certain common features.

Occam's Razor. A useful tool.

My money's still on the other case. That's what the experiencers say, and why should I automatically deny them? The soul and its light or energy body is a sufficient vehicle. Or maybe the merkaba (which means "vehicle," in kabbala tradition) if we have developed it. I experience that energy body now; all I have to do is look within. It seems to me we have disagreed on that before too. You even think the chakras are metaphors. I look within my body and contact them, plain as day. This energy body will survive death.

Yeah, I made mine on the evidence, and you made yours on your worldview. I prefer to have my worldview determined by the evidence, thanks.

You're welcome. Keep watching!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I see remote viewing as a specific practice, very deliberate, as opposed to people having psychic impressions. Most people don't practice remote viewing; many people have had psychic impressions. Psychics and mediums, even if professional, do not use remote viewing.

Perhaps not, but practitioners of magic almost always do, and call it things like "scrying in the spirit vision" or "astral travel." Okay, that's not "most people," granted.

No, I don't need evidence for psi phenomena to provide evidence for spirit communication or the afterlife. The one doesn't prove the other. Sorry if I somehow implied so. They both independently prove the existence of the psyche or soul.

Thanks for the clarification. I did misunderstand, it seems.

However, no, psi doesn't prove the existence of the soul, and since (again) life after death is unfalsifiable and therefore can't be proven, it provides no evidence of anything. I mean, sure, it would if we could show that it happened, but since we can't, we also can't prove anything else based on post-mortem survival.

Taking my tongue fully out of my check, let me be clear again what I said; spirits and ghosts are both spiritual realities that I am open to and think there's good evidence for (scientific or anecdotal), and you are (as far as I can describe it) not open to, or you think can be explained as symbols of some kind of psychic impression of something; I'm not clear on what you think that something is.

It's not that I'm not "open" to the idea as if I were refusing to consider any evidence, it's just that I don't even see what could possibly constitute such evidence. Again, I look for something falsifiable, which means we could conduct a test of some kind to show that it isn't true (and failure to show that would amount to support for the idea that it is). What test would show that a ghost, as seen or otherwise perceived, isn't an actual conscious person? Can you think of any?

The domain of science, is that aspect of reality which its method is equipped to deal with only, and it's good and necessary to use it in those cases.

But it seems to me that you arbitrarily decide that it isn't equipped to deal with any question where it can't return the result that you want. That's not how it works.

I have a different view, as I mentioned then. Individual souls, and all other things in various degrees, are holons. That is like a hologram or a fractile, in which you can take one part of it, and see the whole in it. We are those parts.

That's not a different view. It's a view about a different subject, actually.

And that which is everything, IS everything in particular

"Everything in particular" is a nonsensical phrase. Everything isn't "in particular." It's in general. An entity can be something in particular, or it can be everything in general, but it can't be everything in particular.

What I mean by that signature statement, "That which is everything is nothing in particular," is this. When you are saying that consciousness is this thing in particular (e.g., a hypothetical "soul"), you can't support that by pointing out that consciousness is "everything." Arguably, yes, it is, but that means you can't find a particular item to especially identify it with, such as the "soul" -- or, for that matter, the brain, which has the advantage over the soul that we know it exists, but still fails because consciousness isn't any more the brain than it is, say, a tree, or a rock, or the Andromeda Galaxy.

This is much like your talking about "idealism," above, when what you were really talking about is ghosts. Idealism is the idea that the entire universe is the mind or consciousness. But ghosts are a different idea altogether, that this one particular thing is or carries consciousness, not the universe. Spirits, in the sense you're using that term, and idealism are almost incompatible; you have to twist things about to believe both. Spirits are actually more compatible with realism, in that you are asserting they are "real" in the same sense as a tree or rock, which reality a realist would recognize, but an idealist not -- and not for spirits, either. (Of course, spirits aren't compatible with materialism, but realism doesn't necessarily imply materialism. Dualism is also realism, and spirits are perfectly compatible with that idea.)

Yes, consciousness is everything -- or rather, everything is the interaction between consciousness and reality-in-itself, whatever that is. But as insightful as that is, you can't reason from it to anything specific, beyond itself. That which is everything is nothing in particular.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And even if science can't falsify the claim, experience can falsify it, or circumstantial evidence can falsify it. I am not the one to agree that "if science says this is a fact, it's a fact; otherwise it's not." That's just too limited. Science itself is limited.

How can experience falsify it? How can circumstantial evidence falsify it? By the way, both of these constitute evidence in science, so you're making a false distinction. But I don't see any way to prove it isn't true using any method at all.

I have, and so have others, on this very thread. I'm sure I can provide more. But you may say it is invalid anyway. There are legions of reports of NDEs, OBEs, spirit communications, reincarnations; so many that it would take the rest of my life to list them here. And there are scientists studying it, showing the effects, which you reinterpret to fit your model.

The problem here is that none of these things -- NDEs, OBEs, spirit communications -- constitute evidence for post-mortem survival. What's invalid is not the evidence but the claim that it shows life after death. It doesn't. You can interpret it that way, but only by first assuming that life after death is real, and that means you don't have evidence that it's real. You can also interpret it without making that assumption, and those assumptions aren't even difficult or stretched.

My money's still on the other case. That's what the experiencers say, and why should I automatically deny them?

You've never encountered anyone who had an NDE who didn't take it literally? I certainly have.

The soul and its light or energy body is a sufficient vehicle.

Except we can't define what that is in any operational way.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Perhaps not, but practitioners of magic almost always do, and call it things like "scrying in the spirit vision" or "astral travel." Okay, that's not "most people," granted.

Thanks for the clarification. I did misunderstand, it seems.

However, no, psi doesn't prove the existence of the soul, and since (again) life after death is unfalsifiable and therefore can't be proven, it provides no evidence of anything. I mean, sure, it would if we could show that it happened, but since we can't, we also can't prove anything else based on post-mortem survival.

We understand each others' views then a little better. You know mine and I know yours. We can't hope for much more, between us, or between anyone here.

It's not that I'm not "open" to the idea as if I were refusing to consider any evidence, it's just that I don't even see what could possibly constitute such evidence. Again, I look for something falsifiable, which means we could conduct a test of some kind to show that it isn't true (and failure to show that would amount to support for the idea that it is). What test would show that a ghost, as seen or otherwise perceived, isn't an actual conscious person? Can you think of any?

"you can't see how." You depend on a "test." I can't say that there aren't such tests. Are you open to the possibility that, at least, there are? I am further open, to the probability that such "tests," or the "constitution of such evidence," are inadequate to deal with such phenomena (and I'll stick to that word).

But it seems to me that you arbitrarily decide that it isn't equipped to deal with any question where it can't return the result that you want. That's not how it works.

Not arbitrarily at all; I have explained to you and others multiple times why science is limited and why its methods cannot encompass reality (and not just that they can't deal with "meaning").

You are prepared to reject evidence of the unseen world because such evidence is not what you want, by saying it can't be true because it goes beyond your worldview, so the evidence must be interpreted to fit into it.

For example, your choice to say that the NDE happened when the brain was alive, not while it was dead, although the person who had the NDE says it happened while (s)he was dead, and there's no interruption in his/her experience during such a time anyway, and no basis for you to say when it was. I think Occam's razor says, maybe what (s)he says is true, rather than making arbitrary judgements that it wasn't, when you have no basis for making them.

At what point would you be prepared to say, there is evidence of the unseen? (spirits, afterlife, etc.)

That's not a different view. It's a view about a different subject, actually.

No, it answers the points you raised in the rest of the "can of worms" I just opened. The particular does exist within the universal, just as the whole exists within each part. Consciousness is everything, and the meaning of "everything" must include each and every particular thing. Everything also means every thing. All in one, and one in all. There is nothing in this world that is not consciousness, fully and completely and in every respect. You can't refer to any particular thing, without saying: "it is consciousness." When people use that phrase, consciousness is everything, that's what they mean. That is the spiritual worldview, which I hold. That's what using that word in our "language game" refers to.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

How can experience falsify it? How can circumstantial evidence falsify it? By the way, both of these constitute evidence in science, so you're making a false distinction. But I don't see any way to prove it isn't true using any method at all.

What I meant, was that there's no doubt that people who think they contact grandpa, may think so because they want to see him, and so believe anything they experience without being careful for what they think about it. Many folks are not in that cautious attitude about this, and so may be deceived. But some others may be able to experience their grandpa, and they know it's him because they know who he feels like, and others may be able to ask the spirit about things only grandpa would know, and the spirit knows it, and it is clear that the medium does not. That is circumstantial evidence; not final proof of spirit communication.

The problem here is that none of these things -- NDEs, OBEs, spirit communications -- constitute evidence for post-mortem survival. What's invalid is not the evidence but the claim that it shows life after death. It doesn't. You can interpret it that way, but only by first assuming that life after death is real, and that means you don't have evidence that it's real. You can also interpret it without making that assumption, and those assumptions aren't even difficult or stretched.

It seems to me the easiest interpretation of all this evidence is that life after death is real. It's not the final proof that skeptics demand, but it's enough to convince me, for the moment anyway. It is pretty overwhelming.

You've never encountered anyone who had an NDE who didn't take it literally? I certainly have.

I've heard countless reports and accounts, and all of them took it literally. And it substantially changed their lives, big time. What they learned on the other side was profound-- the most important experience of their "lifetimes." A change in a person's life, so that they become a different person? Isn't that "evidence" of a sort? Ask Dannion Brinkley.

Except we can't define what that is in any operational way.

That's right; within the methods of science, which are limited in what they can know about reality because of such demands to put it into testable form. Reality inevitably escapes the conceptual net of operational definitions, measurements and tools of the senses. But, on the other hand, it's always worth the effort because, even if limited, scientific investigation can gain us much information, including, I think, about the spirit world and our contact with it. No information is totally certain though, about "anything in particular." Oh oh, there's that can of worms again.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You depend on a "test." I can't say that there aren't such tests. Are you open to the possibility that, at least, there are?

Sure. Present one.

I am further open, to the probability that such "tests," or the "constitution of such evidence," are inadequate to deal with such phenomena (and I'll stick to that word).

If not, then they're not phenomena.

Not arbitrarily at all; I have explained to you and others multiple times why science is limited and why its methods cannot encompass reality (and not just that they can't deal with "meaning").

And yet, when push comes to shove, it always seems to come down to, "I want to believe this, and science can't support it, so I set this outside the bounds of science."

You are prepared to reject evidence of the unseen world because such evidence is not what you want, by saying it can't be true because it goes beyond your worldview, so the evidence must be interpreted to fit into it.

No, I'm just not prepared to call something "evidence of the unseen world" when it manifestly and obviously isn't. Sorry about that.

For example, your choice to say that the NDE happened when the brain was alive, not while it was dead, although the person who had the NDE says it happened while (s)he was dead, and there's no interruption in his/her experience during such a time anyway, and no basis for you to say when it was. I think Occam's razor says, maybe what (s)he says is true, rather than making arbitrary judgements that it wasn't, when you have no basis for making them.

Oh, man, there are SO many problems with that.

Start with:

1) The person has no way to know whether there was any interruption in his or her experience.
2) The person has no way to know when the experience occurred.

This is simply not any good, Eric. Here's what we know: the person suffered brain death and then was brought back to life. Afterwards, the person remembered having an experience sometime during the process and described it. That's what we know, and it's ALL that we know, except of course for the details of the experience itself. But by the very nature of the circumstances, there is no way to rely on the individual's report about what time it was or whether he or she was actually dead when it happened.

At what point would you be prepared to say, there is evidence of the unseen? (spirits, afterlife, etc.)

If you have something that cannot be explained as a psi phenomenon, but requires post-mortem survival as a part of the explanation.

The particular does exist within the universal, just as the whole exists within each part. Consciousness is everything, and the meaning of "everything" must include each and every particular thing. Everything also means every thing.

And how does that dispute what I said in my last post? By "nothing in particular," I meant "no one thing any more than any other thing." I thought I made that clear.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

A change in a person's life, so that they become a different person? Isn't that "evidence" of a sort?

Of something, yes. Of life after death, no.

Reality inevitably escapes the conceptual net of operational definitions, measurements and tools of the senses. But, on the other hand, it's always worth the effort because, even if limited, scientific investigation can gain us much information

I'm not sure what you're referring to as "reality" here. But now you're saying that these topics are suitable for scientific method, when earlier you said they weren't. Perhaps you should make up your mind about that? Anyway, if they are, then it's necessary to play by the rules.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Sure. Present one.

OK, I'll look for one. Will you? Are you open to the possibility?

And yet, when push comes to shove, it always seems to come down to, "I want to believe this, and science can't support it, so I set this outside the bounds of science."

I don't think so. It comes down to, I have experienced this, but science can't support it, but I won't deny my experience, or the experience of countless others who all seem to report the same things.

1) The person has no way to know whether there was any interruption in his or her experience.
2) The person has no way to know when the experience occurred.

This is simply not any good, Eric. Here's what we know: the person suffered brain death and then was brought back to life. Afterwards, the person remembered having an experience sometime during the process and described it. That's what we know, and it's ALL that we know, except of course for the details of the experience itself. But by the very nature of the circumstances, there is no way to rely on the individual's report about what time it was or whether he or she was actually dead when it happened.

We know scientifically (s)he was brain-dead; that's not in dispute. You can't say the experience happened when the brain was alive. Although (s)he doesn't know what the time was, all accounts I know of spoke of an uninterrupted experience, which would seem to include the time when the brain was dead.

If you have something that cannot be explained as a psi phenomenon, but requires post-mortem survival as a part of the explanation.

What would that be? What evidence would support it?

And how does that dispute what I said in my last post? By "nothing in particular," I meant "no one thing any more than any other thing." I thought I made that clear.

OK, which though means, that if you accept the spiritual view, consciousness IS all things. You can say then, you might as well call it matter; it "doesn't matter." But the rubber meets the road in what you are open to. If we are spirit, then what the hell is death? Nothing. The word means something in particular after all. It contradicts the materialist view, that says death is real and consciousness is not. Back to square one, dude

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Of something, yes. Of life after death, no.

But they say it was; that the experience of the other side changed them. If it had not been such an experience, but only a delusion or some limited psi experience and not a reality, it would not have changed them at all. They changed, because they learned that there is no death, and that we survive it individually. That's the entire reason the individual has changed so markedly. That is powerful evidence.

I'm not sure what you're referring to as "reality" here. But now you're saying that these topics are suitable for scientific method, when earlier you said they weren't. Perhaps you should make up your mind about that? Anyway, if they are, then it's necessary to play by the rules.

I have always been clear on that. I never said there were unsuitable topics for research; I said there are limits to what it can know. Science can investigate anything, but yes, it must play by its rules; definitely. Fraud and sloppy work is not acceptable. Science meanwhile need not assume that, without itself, there is no such reality. It can acknowledge that, no, the materialist dogma is not correct. We don't know everything with only the details to be filled in. We don't have all the answers. Our methods don't give us all (or the only) knowledge about reality or the world. The answers we do find are less than absolute. Science (as we know it, anyway) must follow its methods, but needs no such dogma to do so.

To hold to such a dogma, in order to counteract the creationists and climate science deniers, seems too high a price to pay. The creationists and the deniers don't listen to either one of us types. They have their beliefs, and science won't dissuade them whether the scientists are materialists or not.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't think so. It comes down to, I have experienced this, but science can't support it, but I won't deny my experience, or the experience of countless others who all seem to report the same things.

But no one is denying the experience. What's being disputed is your interpretation of it. That's not an experience but an idea, a model, a concept or theory.

We know scientifically (s)he was brain-dead; that's not in dispute. You can't say the experience happened when the brain was alive.

Yes, I certainly can. The brain went through changes before and after being clinically dead. It is far more likely on the face of it that the experience occurred during those changes, on one side or the other, rather than during the time when it was clinically dead.

Although (s)he doesn't know what the time was, all accounts I know of spoke of an uninterrupted experience, which would seem to include the time when the brain was dead.

Have you ever had the experience of lying down, being sleepy, and then looking at the clock what seemed to be just a moment later and realizing you'd been asleep for the past few hours? That feels like uninterrupted experience, too.

Besides, if the NDE occurs before or after brain death, it wouldn't be interrupted.

EDIT: I just realized why I intuitively considered the approaching-death time frame for NDE more likely than the on-revival time frame. It's because we also have reports of NDEs from people who were never clinically dead, but only almost died. Those people have no revival phase, so more likely the NDE occurs as death approaches. And of course, that's also evidence in favor of all NDEs occurring while the brain is still alive, as we know that's the case where the brain never actually dies, and as far as I know there's no difference between those NDEs and those undergone by people who actually die.

What would that be? What evidence would support it?

Can't think of anything offhand, but you asked for the criteria and that would be it. Actually, it's probably insuperable, because true post-mortem survival doesn't mean that we, who are still alive, can obtain psychic information about those who are dead. It means that when we are dead, we will experience continued existence subjectively. You run into the same problem verifying this about a ghost that you do with observing consciousness generally. Which means that life after death really is outside scientific competence.

Apparitions, near-death experiences, and all the other stuff that you take as evidence of life after death, though, is not.

OK, which though means, that if you accept the spiritual view, consciousness IS all things. You can say then, you might as well call it matter; it "doesn't matter." But the rubber meets the road in what you are open to. If we are spirit, then what the hell is death? Nothing.

Right, but it still remains an open question in what form consciousness continues after death. That it continues in some form follows from its universal nature, but survival of consciousness is one thing, survival of the personality another. I'm with the Buddha on that one: it doesn't happen.

Of course, if the personality could be perfectly replicated in some other information-processing device besides the brain, the universal nature of consciousness means that this would be a true post-mortem survival in the naïve sense. But I see no good candidates for that at this time.

Incidentally, I would recommend that anyone genuinely interested in the types of things that we've been discussing here check out the following forum, where I've found the level of intelligent and informed discourse to be remarkable:http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/index.php

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Incidentally, I would recommend that anyone genuinely interested in the types of things that we've been discussing here check out the following forum, where I've found the level of intelligent and informed discourse to be remarkable:http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/index.php

Never seen such a concentrated source of nonsense. You've got Uri Gellar spoon bender fans mixed with Bigfoot chasers with JFK conspiracy nuts with alternative medicine quacks with fortune tellers with ancient alien wackos.

The one thing that brings them together? The fact that properly controlled scientific research shows their personal cause is not real. So a fan of one idea consoles and supports someone with a different passion as if their two ideas were not in fact mutually exclusive.

I just read something about the late skeptic Martin Gardner, who was also a very fine mathematician and, in contrast with a lot of pseudo-skeptics, actually contributed a great deal to the sum of human knowledge. It appears that Gardner may have been a skeptic out of religious belief, by which in this case I don't mean the quasi-religious ideology that characterizes many pseudo-skeptics, but literal religious belief of the theistic kind. Gardner apparently felt that we should not be looking for paranormal phenomena because that amounted to putting God to the test, in a paraphrase of Jesus' statement to the Devil during his temptation in the desert, or his comment later that only those without faith looked for a sign. Gardner considered the search for evidence of the paranormal to be blasphemy, not against scientific materialism, but against God.

The skeptics are usually right. On occasion, conventional medicine may be even more stridently wrong than alternative medicine. Skeptics have usually proved that amazing results have far simpler explanations. Crop circles are a prime example; one needs only some simple devices to create a very impressive circle. So why waste some good crops to make the point that we have had alien visitations? Ghosts? Typically they appear in houses less than airtight -- and they are usually animal in origin. UFO's? Count me among those who have seen flying lights that I did not fully understand. Of course those were in the direction of either (Dallas) Love Field or Dallas/Fort Worth Airport. Maybe Addison Airport in northern Dallas -- rumors were that much dope was being flown into that airport before the DEA stationed itself there. Big deal. I'm no expert on aircraft. Oh, yes -- I have seen Venus and under some freakish conditions Mars in daylight.

The Loch Ness monster has been debunked. Sasquatch? In some horrible ads for meat snacks.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The skeptics are usually right. On occasion, conventional medicine may be even more stridently wrong than alternative medicine. Skeptics have usually proved that amazing results have far simpler explanations. Crop circles are a prime example; one needs only some simple devices to create a very impressive circle. So why waste some good crops to make the point that we have had alien visitations? Ghosts? Typically they appear in houses less than airtight -- and they are usually animal in origin. UFO's? Count me among those who have seen flying lights that I did not fully understand. Of course those were in the direction of either (Dallas) Love Field or Dallas/Fort Worth Airport. Maybe Addison Airport in northern Dallas -- rumors were that much dope was being flown into that airport before the DEA stationed itself there. Big deal. I'm no expert on aircraft. Oh, yes -- I have seen Venus and under some freakish conditions Mars in daylight.

The Loch Ness monster has been debunked. Sasquatch? In some horrible ads for meat snacks.

Alternative medicine offers successful treatments and prevention that regular medicine does not. Both are needed, but conventional medicine treats humans as machines. They are not, and so its cures are often expensive and fruitless. In emergencies, it may sometimes help, though often all it offers is expensive management of inevitable failure.

To prevent disease is often the better path. Most often, health is the result of a good lifestyle. Conventional ideas on health have given us pills and treatments that have many side effects and deaths from mistakes. They give us heart attacks and strokes because the cause of these diseases have not been understood to be mostly lifestyle and feelings about our problems. Alternative treatments are not understood by medical science, because its paradigm is that humans are machines. Treatments that restore the life force or chi do not fit the concept of materialism, but they work, so people use them. Acupuncture for example understands the lines of force in the body and how they are connected, and I have heard of scientific evidence that it works. Most medicines are herbal remedies transformed into dangerous pills. Natural herbs remain the best cures we have, but we are exterminating many of them.

Most crop circles are unexplained. What was debunked was the silly story that they were created by a couple of farmers. Some are believed to be created by occultists. Crop circles have magnetic charges that show they are not created by simple devices. ET crafts and orbs have been seen near them. They appear all over the world. Many UFO sightings are unexplained. And it's news to me that the Loch Ness Monster has been "debunked." Maybe it has; no big deal, but I'd like to see the evidence.

Don't believe it. The skeptics are wrong. Science understands but a tiny fraction of life and our reality. It is like trying to trap the ocean with a sieve. That doesn't mean we have to give credence to every legend or conspiracy theory that comes down the pike, as some people do. Science, for all its limits, has some credibility for verifying claims of phenomena. To assume one way or the other before knowing the facts and the reality, is silly.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

But no one is denying the experience. What's being disputed is your interpretation of it. That's not an experience but an idea, a model, a concept or theory.

I think what is happening, is that reality is far more miraculous and mysterious and beyond our understanding than science fans want to accept, so they cling to narrow concepts.

Yes, I certainly can. The brain went through changes before and after being clinically dead. It is far more likely on the face of it that the experience occurred during those changes, on one side or the other, rather than during the time when it was clinically dead.

Have you ever had the experience of lying down, being sleepy, and then looking at the clock what seemed to be just a moment later and realizing you'd been asleep for the past few hours? That feels like uninterrupted experience, too.

Besides, if the NDE occurs before or after brain death, it wouldn't be interrupted.

But if it occurs during brain death, as is most likely, then the person/spirit involved would have to experience a black out between periods of brain activity. There's no basis for saying an NDE was "far more likely" to happen during brain activity except the materialist interpretation and paradigm.

EDIT: I just realized why I intuitively considered the approaching-death time frame for NDE more likely than the on-revival time frame. It's because we also have reports of NDEs from people who were never clinically dead, but only almost died. Those people have no revival phase, so more likely the NDE occurs as death approaches. And of course, that's also evidence in favor of all NDEs occurring while the brain is still alive, as we know that's the case where the brain never actually dies, and as far as I know there's no difference between those NDEs and those undergone by people who actually die.

I don't know of any such NDEs. all reports I have heard of, were from people who were clinically dead.

Can't think of anything offhand, but you asked for the criteria and that would be it. Actually, it's probably insuperable, because true post-mortem survival doesn't mean that we, who are still alive, can obtain psychic information about those who are dead. It means that when we are dead, we will experience continued existence subjectively. You run into the same problem verifying this about a ghost that you do with observing consciousness generally. Which means that life after death really is outside scientific competence.

Apparitions, near-death experiences, and all the other stuff that you take as evidence of life after death, though, is not.

Yes, and the effects and circumstantial evidence of the conscious dead is possible too. Such things as knowledge only grandpa could have known, information about a room seen beyond the body that no-one could have known, and verification of information about past lives gained from a past-life recall, are evidence, even if not final proof. Such evidence is clearly falsifiable, not by explaining them as more likely due to some physical cause because you think that's the only possible explanation, but in that case simply that this information given by the subject or the medium can be found to be incorrect.

Right, but it still remains an open question in what form consciousness continues after death. That it continues in some form follows from its universal nature, but survival of consciousness is one thing, survival of the personality another. I'm with the Buddha on that one: it doesn't happen.

Buddha was unclear on this. He gave no fixed doctrine on the soul, or on anything else; he only said we shouldn't have such fixed ideas. He taught reincarnation anyway, and that life on Earth is a round to be overcome, not the only life. What is clear is that Buddhists differ on this question. Tibetan Buddhists clearly accept the reality of life after death and reincarnation of the same soul. Did you see the program about the rebirth of a master teacher sought for and found by his young student and verified by the Dali Lama and the others at his former ashram? Is the Dali Lama not a Buddhist? Was he not given his title in the same way? No, there is no consensus on this matter. The point is that the idea of the soul, is not what we are. We are very confused on this, and there's a lot of things we think we are, which we are not. On that, you and I agree Brian.

Your view, I know and understand, and once held myself. I changed my mind on it. Oneness and individuality are not incompatible; they are interdependent. I conceive myself as essentially The One, but I accept and honor individuality (which I call it, rather than the disparaging term "personality," which implies it is just a delusion and surface mask). I think we are individuals, and that individuality matters and gives life some of its basic meaning and purpose. Without it, life is empty and useless. Our purpose is to grow and learn, and one lifetime is too short (especially lifetimes in the past, but even today). Brian, Eric, mikebert, brower and even Vandal are real individual souls, and individuality is manifestly important to us. Being centered in a self seems to be something that is irreducible, and significant to us. I can't dissolve it just with an idea.

The delusion is separation from the whole, or the divine. We are not separate beings. This is a physical fact as well as a philosophical or mystical insight. At the most intimate level, we are the divine itself. Yet, the universe on all levels manifests as individuals, from atoms to Adam, and from cells to selves. I give more credence to individual souls than to individual things.

Life after death is really a separate issue from this. But honoring the individual at least makes survival something more than a notion ruled out by enlightenment. It makes it an idea to investigate and explore. I like exploring the unknown. These questions are the real frontier of knowledge today, not the edge of the universe or dark matter or bosons. Some people are willing to go to that edge. I am one of them. We live on the edge of death every day. I am curious about it, and open-minded about it. Just saying "I live for the moment here on Earth" means little when death is my immediate future.

Of course, if the personality could be perfectly replicated in some other information-processing device besides the brain, the universal nature of consciousness means that this would be a true post-mortem survival in the naïve sense. But I see no good candidates for that at this time.

I do; the energy or spirit body, which we already have while in the body, and experience within ourselves. The brain is severely over-rated, because physical explanations are very overrated by our physical and tech-obsessed society. Even within the body, it's clear that the brain is not the only seat of consciousness and intelligence; the other chakras are all soul centers. The old fashioned notion among the tribes and the pre-modern, pre-secular, pre-Western society is most-likely correct. The ancestors live, spirits live, and reincarnation is real.

Brian and others here can and will keep their respective views if they want. I am interested in these subjects, and willing to share.

The great Rupert Sheldrake portrays the "annoying" Vandal completely and accurately in the first minute; then goes on to explain the 10 dogmas. He explains the origin of and lack of evidence for the false dogma of the conservation of matter and energy as an unexamined philosophical assumption that became embedded in science; and he does the same with the notion of fixed laws of nature and constants.

In Part 2 he goes into more detail than in the TED talk about 2 of the other dogmas: that matter is unconscious, and that the mind is in the brain. These two dogmas are also philosophical and religious doctrines that got embedded in science as unquestioned beliefs, not because of the evidence, and have remained there until today. But there is a renaissance in science today because some scientists are setting themselves free from these 2 and the other dogmas of science.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Pretty good description of Vandal, I'd say

I guess on this "blockhead" the G stands for Gumby, which is a TV show I never saw, but if the blockhead is Vandal, then listening to Sheldrake's lecture, it's perfectly clear that G could stand for BIG G, the gravitational constant that Sheldrake shows is not really a constant, but just the kind of dogma that Vandal believes in.

Poor, superstitious, annoying, scornful, blockhead Mr. Vandal.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think what is happening, is that reality is far more miraculous and mysterious and beyond our understanding than science fans want to accept, so they cling to narrow concepts.

No. Anyone who is paying attention to science these days knows that the universe is indeed miraculous and mysterious, and if it's not beyond our understanding, it's at least not fully understood at present. But that doesn't mean we should turn off our critical minds. Pseudo-skepticism is dogma, but real skepticism is its antidote, and it should properly be applied to all ideas that come along.

But if it occurs during brain death, as is most likely, then the person/spirit involved would have to experience a black out between periods of brain activity.

Eric, what you just said is a piece of evidence against the experience occurring during brain death, or would be if it was coherent, which it isn't.,

There's no basis for saying an NDE was "far more likely" to happen during brain activity except the materialist interpretation and paradigm.

Yes, there is. We know how it could happen during brain activity. We don't know how it could happen without an active brain. In fact, we have a perfectly good explanation for how the experience occurs (but not of its meaning) without departing from standard understanding of the brain at all, so what you're doing here is to invent "evidence" out of whole cloth, where none actually exists.

I don't know of any such NDEs. all reports I have heard of, were from people who were clinically dead.

You also didn't know of anyone who had an NDE and didn't take it literally as evidence of the afterlife. There appear to be lots of things about this phenomenon that you don't know. On this point, though, education is easy. Go here: https://iands.org/about-ndes.html

Originally Posted by IANDS

A near-death experience (NDE) is a distinct subjective experience that people sometimes report after a near-death episode. In a near-death episode, a person is either clinically dead, near death, or in a situation where death is likely or expected. These circumstances include serious illness or injury, such as from a car accident, military combat, childbirth, or suicide attempt. People in profound grief, in deep meditation, or just going about their normal lives have also described experiences that seem just like NDEs, even though these people were not near death.

What this means is that we have occurrences of the NDE when the brain did NOT undergo clinical death, as well as occurrences when it did. In the first category, the experience definitely did occur while the brain was alive. In the second, we have a period when it was not, but no reason at all to suppose the experience occurred during that time.

Yes, and the effects and circumstantial evidence of the conscious dead is possible too. Such things as knowledge only grandpa could have known, information about a room seen beyond the body that no-one could have known, and verification of information about past lives gained from a past-life recall, are evidence, even if not final proof.

How much have you studied the records of the Society for Psychical Research, which has looked into mediumship for a very long time? The Society's investigations found many instances of psychic perception of verifiable facts, but they also found that in every case, the medium had holes in his knowledge that should not have been there if the medium were simplistically and literally contacting the spirit of a dead person. A famous example is a very powerful medium studied by Henry James, who did not know things about James' famous father or brother, or James himself, even things that were matters of public record.

All of these phenomena look like psychic perception rather than literal spirit contact. They show the same failures as well as successes that may be found in psychic perception without any hint of ghost involvement. In short, there is nothing that "only grandpa could have known." There are only things that only grandpa could have known by ordinary means. If a medium picks up on some of this information, clearly he or she was employing non-ordinary means of doing so, but we have plenty of evidence of this happening without resorting to communication with the dead as a hypothesis.

Buddha was unclear on this. He gave no fixed doctrine on the soul, or on anything else; he only said we shouldn't have such fixed ideas. He taught reincarnation anyway, and that life on Earth is a round to be overcome, not the only life.

No, that's not true. Here: http://www.buddha101.com/p_nirvana.htm

The Buddhist concept of "rebirth" is distinct from reincarnation in that it doesn't involve the soul. The Buddha explicitly taught that nothing -- no memory or personality -- is carried over from one life to the next, but rather it's a manifestation of continuing cause and effect (karma). Reincarnation is a Hindu concept rather than a Buddhist one.

It's true that Buddhists disagree on the subject, but I specifically said the Buddha, not Buddhists.

Brian and others here can and will keep their respective views if they want. I am interested in these subjects, and willing to share.

Fine. My only problem is when you present things as evidence for your views that isn't. I'm going to continue to call you on that.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No. Anyone who is paying attention to science these days knows that the universe is indeed miraculous and mysterious, and if it's not beyond our understanding, it's at least not fully understood at present. But that doesn't mean we should turn off our critical minds. Pseudo-skepticism is dogma, but real skepticism is its antidote, and it should properly be applied to all ideas that come along.

I think you are applying a couple of philosophical considerations; that mental activity depends on a living brain, and that consciousness can't be individualized. These to me are assumptions and not evidence.

Yes, there is. We know how it could happen during brain activity. We don't know how it could happen without an active brain. In fact, we have a perfectly good explanation for how the experience occurs (but not of its meaning) without departing from standard understanding of the brain at all, so what you're doing here is to invent "evidence" out of whole cloth, where none actually exists.

You don't know how it could happen without an active brain. You are sticking to your present knowledge, and not looking at the abundant evidence that exists.

You also didn't know of anyone who had an NDE and didn't take it literally as evidence of the afterlife. There appear to be lots of things about this phenomenon that you don't know. On this point, though, education is easy. Go here: https://iands.org/about-ndes.html

"A near-death experience (NDE) is a distinct subjective experience that people sometimes report after a near-death episode. In a near-death episode, a person is either clinically dead, near death, or in a situation where death is likely or expected. These circumstances include serious illness or injury, such as from a car accident, military combat, childbirth, or suicide attempt. People in profound grief, in deep meditation, or just going about their normal lives have also described experiences that seem just like NDEs, even though these people were not near death. Many near-death experiencers (NDErs) have said the term “near-death” is not correct; they are sure that they were in death, not just near-death."

The term itself is confusing. The proper term for the relevant experience would be "beyond death" experiences for those that happen during brain death. Many others can say that have been near death; that does not mean they had an experience after death and then came back; it just means they were near death. There are abundant reports including many testimonies I have personally heard or interviewed of such beyond death experiences. This is the type Raymond Moody was talking about when he invented the term near-death experience. But it really refers only to literal experiences during clinical death only.

How much have you studied the records of the Society for Psychical Research, which has looked into mediumship for a very long time? The Society's investigations found many instances of psychic perception of verifiable facts, but they also found that in every case, the medium had holes in his knowledge that should not have been there if the medium were simplistically and literally contacting the spirit of a dead person. A famous example is a very powerful medium studied by Henry James, who did not know things about James' famous father or brother, or James himself, even things that were matters of public record.

All of these phenomena look like psychic perception rather than literal spirit contact. They show the same failures as well as successes that may be found in psychic perception without any hint of ghost involvement. In short, there is nothing that "only grandpa could have known." There are only things that only grandpa could have known by ordinary means. If a medium picks up on some of this information, clearly he or she was employing non-ordinary means of doing so, but we have plenty of evidence of this happening without resorting to communication with the dead as a hypothesis.

I probably have not looked at such instances enough; there's always more to learn. Clearly this is something that can be decided by the evidence. But if you say the medium did communicate information only grandpa could have known, then just theorize that this was the psychic's own ability, is just an extra attempt to get around the facts.

No, that's not true. Here: http://www.buddha101.com/p_nirvana.htm

The Buddhist concept of "rebirth" is distinct from reincarnation in that it doesn't involve the soul. The Buddha explicitly taught that nothing -- no memory or personality -- is carried over from one life to the next, but rather it's a manifestation of continuing cause and effect (karma). Reincarnation is a Hindu concept rather than a Buddhist one.

It's true that Buddhists disagree on the subject, but I specifically said the Buddha, not Buddhists.

Alan Watts and other experts have said that Buddha did not lay down doctrines; he began a dialogue. Buddhists have taken it from there and have come to different conclusions on this issue.

How about this statement from the site you linked:

"The Buddha refused to be drawn on what occurred then, but implied that it was beyond word and without boundaries."

That sounds like what I said. What Buddha said is more like not to take life after death and the soul as rigid dogmas, as Hindus tended to do, without saying definitely what was or was not the case about it.

Fine. My only problem is when you present things as evidence for your views that isn't. I'm going to continue to call you on that.

Same thing applies. You can say what your views are, and that's all they are. What you call me on, may in fact be evidence; but if you say it isn't, based on philosophy and not on evidence, then it is you that may need to be called on.
How you respond to what I share, is your business.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think you are applying a couple of philosophical considerations; that mental activity depends on a living brain, and that consciousness can't be individualized. These to me are assumptions and not evidence.

Actually, I haven't said that consciousness can't be individualized. It's clear enough that consciousness IS individualized, but that this is an ephemeral phenomenon and not a constant. As for mental activity being dependent on the brain, there is a lot of evidence for that.

I wonder if you understood what Sheldrake said on the subject in the second video you linked above. He wasn't talking about mental activity happening without the brain being involved, but about the concept of the mind being confined to the inside of the skull being naïve, and pointing out that when we interact with the universe through sensation, we are extending the mind out to the edges of what we can see, in an active as well as passive fashion. This is something totally different from what you are talking about.

You don't know how it could happen without an active brain. You are sticking to your present knowledge, and not looking at the abundant evidence that exists.

I don't see any evidence. You have certainly not presented any.

The term itself is confusing. The proper term for the relevant experience would be "beyond death" experiences for those that happen during brain death.

The question before us is whether the experience ever happens during brain death. Deliberately choosing a term that assumes so a priori is not appropriate. Is there anything about the NDEs of those who have not suffered brain death that distinguishes it from the NDEs of those who have, anything internal to the experience itself? Apparently not. Is there any solid evidence that the NDEs of those who do suffer brain death, occur while the brain is dead? No. Is there any reason to believe this? Only if, as seems to be true with you, one is determined to find evidence of life after death here. And while that is a reason to believe it, it isn't a valid reason.

If there is evidence of life after death in the NDE, it is in the information acquired by the NDE itself, and not in the circumstances of its occurrence. One thing that does appear to be the case is that those who undergo NDEs emerge in most cases with greatly reduced fear of death. And in fact, consciousness being universal, and our own individual consciousness only something like a wave pattern in the greater sea, death is nothing to fear, and the NDE appears to make people more aware of this -- which is also true of deep spiritual experience, which seems greatly to resemble the NDE so that it is not unwarranted to call the NDE a form or specific type of spiritual experience.

I probably have not looked at such instances enough; there's always more to learn. Clearly this is something that can be decided by the evidence. But if you say the medium did communicate information only grandpa could have known, then just theorize that this was the psychic's own ability, is just an extra attempt to get around the facts.

Eric, what are the "facts" here? The actual facts are that the medium entered an altered state of consciousness and produced certain information which, in some cases, could not have been acquired by normal mundane methods. Anything else -- anything at all -- is an interpretation of the facts and not a fact itself. So no, I am not "trying to get around the facts." I am recognizing all of the facts (I just did), and providing an explanation for them. That the medium contacted the spirit of a dead person is NOT a fact. It is an interpretation of the facts, and a pretty unlikely one on the face of it.

What you call me on, may in fact be evidence; but if you say it isn't, based on philosophy and not on evidence

It's based on what the word "evidence" means. If that's philosophy, it's basic epistemology and generally agreed upon.