Why a Near-Death Experience Isn’t Proof of Heaven

[George-ananda]

It's science. How do you determine if the experience of nde's occurred when the brain is shutdown? You can't. There's nothing to support that.

That's scientism to say that if science can't study it, we can't accept it. I don't subscribe to scientism myself.

As much as materialists try to squirm out, the evidence of things like knowledge of events at a distance, knowledge of events while the brain was shut-down, etc. makes the materialist explanation so unlikely as to be ruled out in my opinion. For what my opinion is worth with you

But we do know for a fact the same type of experiences can be, and are present whenever the brain is active in some degree. Pilots in training have the same experiences when exposed to extreme G forces, or people on certain types of drugs or whatnot that alter the mind to produce those same experiences. Each and every time, the brain is clearly active during these moments. There is no reason to really think otherwise. To say that NDEs occur when the brain is completely shut down..... No, I don't think so.

These pilot studies to me, tell us that some of this experience is indeed triggered by brain trauma. That is consistent with my beliefs too.

There is absolutely nothing that supports a notion that there is any NDE experience at the moment in time when the brain is shut down.

Except for a significant amount of anecdotal evidence from the actual experiencers. Not being a follower of scientism, I consider (meaning neither blindly accepting nor blindly rejecting) these things in forming my personal position.

 

[shunyadragon]

that what science is - now, it always corrects itself with new findings. Science have no firm idea what consciousness is. Ancient wisdom have.

Again . . . this is false 'arguing from ignorance.' First it depends on which ancient wisdom you appeal to. For example; If you appeal to Vedic (Hindu) Wisdom they may consider all of our existence is an illusion a 'Source' is the ultimate universal consciousness,

In reality ancient religions and cultures are variable and have no idea what the reality of consciosness is.

Second, science does have extensive research relating the mind and consciousness to the brain,

 

[shunyadragon]

That's scientism to say that if science can't study it, we can't accept it. I don't subscribe to scientism myself.

Neither do I subscribe to scientism, nor by far most scientists.

Your using the bogus term 'scientism as rock to throw at science without a sincere understanding of what the sceince is concerning the mind, consciousness, NDEs, and Out of Body experiences. Of course, science has many unanswered questions, but an 'appeal to ignorance' of science does not work. Science does not reject other possible explanations that they cannot address using the scientific methods.

As much as materialists try to squirm out, the evidence of things like knowledge of events at a distance, knowledge of events while the brain was shut-down, etc. makes the materialist explanation so unlikely as to be ruled out in my opinion. For what my opinion is worth with you
These pilot studies to me, tell us that some of this experience is indeed triggered by brain trauma. That is consistent with my beliefs too.
Except for a significant amount of anecdotal evidence from the actual experiencers. Not being a follower of scientism, I consider (meaning neither blindly accepting nor blindly rejecting) these things in forming my personal position.

Opinions nor anecdotal evidence don't count much. Materialists (Bad term, and you need to be more specific who you are referring to here.) are not trying to squirm out of anything.

 

[George-ananda]

Neither do I subscribe to scientism, nor by far most scientists.

Your using the bogus term 'scientism as rock to throw at science without a sincere understanding of what the sceince is concerning the mind, consciousness, NDEs, and Out of Body experiences. Of course, science has many unanswered questions, but an 'appeal to ignorance' of science does not work. Science does not reject other possible explanations that they cannot address using the scientific methods.

Scientism, in my understanding, is saying physical science is the most authoritative source for understanding reality. What comes from this is the attitude that if science can not study it, it remains an 'unknown'. I am saying other wisdom traditions (such as the eastern (Hindu) wisdom tradition) are also to be considered in understanding reality.

Opinions nor anecdotal evidence don't count much. Materialists (Bad term, and you need to be more specific who you are referring to here.) are not trying to squirm out of anything.

By materialist on this subject, I am referring to those that hold that that all consciousness is reducible to brain activity.

 

[shunyadragon]

Scientism, in my understanding, is saying physical science is the most authoritative source for understanding reality. What comes from this is the attitude that if science can not study it, it remains an 'unknown'. I am saying other wisdom traditions (such as the eastern (Hindu) wisdom tradition) are also to be considered in understanding reality.

Problem here 'scientism' basically does not exist in science. Science is physical science is the most authoritative source for understanding the physical reality.

There is nothing wrong with 'What comes from this is the attitude that if science can not study it, it remains an 'unknown' as far as science is concerned. There is nothing in science that says that individual scientists, non-scientists and organizations may believe in alternate explanations concerning philosophies and beliefs outside our physical reality.

By materialist on this subject, I am referring to those that hold that that all consciousness is reducible to brain activity.

Actually, the present evidence from the scientific view is that this is the case. There are no theories, hypothesis, nor verifiable objective evidence that supports any other view.

Now, if one want to propose an alternate 'source' of the mind and consciousness beyond science than that is simply outside the realm of the objective verifiable evidence available to science.

 

[socharlie]

It's true science doesn't know the ultimate questions, but it definitely has made progressive inroads in explaining things like this.

I would love to have my personal views and thoughts confirmed as well. But much rather have science steer me in the right directions because I'm curious what the truth actually is, not what I would think or wanted it to be.

Anyways I think all the questions will be definitely "answered" whether we remember such things or not once we all pass away.

provided science is capable to answer the question...science limited itself by studying physical world only,

Problem here 'scientism' basically does not exist in science. Science is physical science is the most authoritative source for understanding the physical reality.

There is nothing wrong with 'What comes from this is the attitude that if science can not study it, it remains an 'unknown' as far as science is concerned. There is nothing in science that says that individual scientists, non-scientists and organizations may believe in alternate explanations concerning philosophies and beliefs outside our physical reality.



Actually, the present evidence from the scientific view is that this is the case. There are no theories, hypothesis, nor verifiable objective evidence that supports any other view.

Now, if one want to propose an alternate 'source' of the mind and consciousness beyond science than that is simply outside the realm of the objective verifiable evidence available to science.

imo, science is not settled, it is micro not macro until they sort out this : Understanding the Physics of Our Universe: What Is Quantum Mechanics?

 

[dfnj]

The subconscious mind is fully capable of creating a religious experience.
Does this rule out supernatural explanations? No, but it provides an alternate explanation which doesn't require the involvement of supernatural agents.

If all the conscious self only has as input to experience is the output of our imagination then it is a supernatural experience by definition. When reality and imagination become merged for the conscious self there is only one reality. From your perspective outside the person's mind having the experience the answer is "no". But from within, the answer is "yes".

 

[George-ananda]

Problem here 'scientism' basically does not exist in science. Science is physical science is the most authoritative source for understanding the physical reality.

There is nothing wrong with 'What comes from this is the attitude that if science can not study it, it remains an 'unknown' as far as science is concerned. There is nothing in science that says that individual scientists, non-scientists and organizations may believe in alternate explanations concerning philosophies and beliefs outside our physical reality.



Actually, the present evidence from the scientific view is that this is the case. There are no theories, hypothesis, nor verifiable objective evidence that supports any other view.

Now, if one want to propose an alternate 'source' of the mind and consciousness beyond science than that is simply outside the realm of the objective verifiable evidence available to science.

Actually through the shouting at each other we may be saying the same thing.

Science I believe should be agnostic on these questions of God and Consciousness. That is correct for science at this point in time.

Scientism, to me, means only looking to science for these answers. I know many scientists do not follow scientism but many do.

I personally believe the more advanced schools of the eastern (Hindu) wisdom traditions are the best sources for understanding the BIG issues.

 

[shunyadragon]

Scientism, to me, means only looking to science for these answers. I know many scientists do not follow scientism but many do.

Actually, I understand your definition, but unfortunately it is not useful in understanding the science view of those things outside the scope of science.

I personally believe the more advanced schools of the eastern (Hindu) wisdom traditions are the best sources for understanding the BIG issues.

I tend to discount individual religious traditions of wisdom as the best source, and appeal more to the diversity religious traditions of the world and history as wisdom from the diverse human perspective.

 

[shunyadragon]

provided science is capable to answer the question...science limited itself by studying physical world only,

True

imo, science is not settled, it is micro not macro until they sort out this : Understanding the Physics of Our Universe: What Is Quantum Mechanics?

A second source website riddled with anecdotal opinion is not an academic authoritative.
of course there remains many unknown answers to the the Questions of Quantum Mechanics, but the separation is clear and both the macro world and the Quantum world remain the realm of science. The world of Quantum Mechanics is the micro world measured in Quanta where the behavior the basic particles and energy dominate, and gravity is not observed like in the macro world.

Raising the 'fog index' of unknowns is a slippery 'argument from ignorance.'

 

[Nous]

The scientific studies on NDEs have not tested a hypothesis about heaven.

The evidence relating to NDEs demonstrates that people can have lucid experiences including complex and logical thought processes, form memories, and have veridical perceptions not acquired through sensory organs during clinical death or the seconds immediately after resuscitation, when there is insufficient electrical activity and oxygen in the brain to maintain even fundamental cardiac and respiratory functions, much less the global cerebral activity commonly assumed to be necessary for such lucid experiences, logical thought processes and memory formation. Veridical perceptions not obtained through the sensory organs are not accounted by claiming that they are hallucinations.

There are a variety of ways in which NDEs are distinguishable from hallucinations. For instance, the phenomenological characteristics of NDEs are limited and commonly shared among people, so much so that there are scales that measure a "core experience". This is in stark contrast with hallucinations, which can be about anything, can have all manner of elements and features, and which do not have shared, core elements. In hospital settings, the content of drug-induced hallucinations usually involve circumstances that the patient had sensory experience of--patients generally don't report leaving their bodies and visiting unearthly realms.

People who are congenitally blind, who don't dream or hallucinate in colors and imagery, often report seeing colors and imagery during NDEs, and, in fact, have reported veridical perceptions confirmed by other witnesses. Obviously one cannot logically claim that NDEs are just dreams or hallucinations when NDEs are not like dreams or hallucinations that people blind since birth have.

The authors of a recent study . . .

. . . explain that peoples' memories of real events involve more phenomenological characteristics than do memories of imagined events. Given this, they compared the characteristics of memories among 3 groups of coma survivors (patients reporting an NDE; patients reporting memory of their coma but no NDE; and those with no memory) and a group of age-matched healthy volunteers, assessing 5 types of memories. They found that peoples' NDE memories exhibit more phenomenological characteristics than memories of imagined events and real events, and that NDE memories entail better clarity and more self-referential and emotional information than do peoples' coma memories who did not have an NDE. The authors conclude that “this suggests that [NDE memories] cannot be considered as imagined event memories.”​

Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics?

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, but isn't the 'subconscious' itself real, ergo the experiences you have during say a dream or an NDE are equally real... as apparently subjective as they are... What do you predict the consequences of rejecting such subjective experiences would be on you in the long term, and what is rational about rejecting them? What does supernatural mean anyway? What can you experience that isn't natural?

This is the problem I have with scientific materialism in lines of thought anyway, it starts with an arrogant presupposition that one thing is right and one thing isn't. That because something isn't logical, it's invalid... Everyone else's experiences are invalid because you can't explain them, or relate to them. See what I mean about arrogance?

Yes, the subconscious is real. The experience is real. Just as when you experience a VR game. VR is able to create the experience without the physical reality. Knowing they are not physical reality, it rational not to base your choices/actions that you experience in physical reality.

Supernatural is something not explainable by natural laws. So there no way to verify the truth of any explanation for. Basically you can create and believe any explanation you can imagine since there is no way to prove or disprove it.

The problem that it can be shown human experience is not reliable. Eye witness accounts at not reliable. People lie, people misremember. People can miss important information and remember the occurrence of events which didn't happen the way they remember.

Science is just a way to increase the reliability of knowledge about something we experience. If we are not concerned about the reliability of our knowledge you can believe anything you imagine to be true. Our own knowledge of the truth becomes unreliable.

So I would say such experiences are invalid, just unreliable. This is as much true about my own experiences as anyone else's.

If you say something is supernatural you are basically saying that you can't test the reliability of that experience.

 

[Nakosis]

The source you question is yourself.
It is the only source you have.
You could believe what other people tell you but I would advise against it.

Science allows us to prove our claims to others. If I say X is the cause of Y and I can show in all possible circumstances, that we can imagine, that X will always cause Y to happen, others, including myself can be pretty confident the X will always cause Y.