Unscientific

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by DysonSphere

Almost invariably so called "believers" in life after death are put down by Skeptics as being unscientific. Sometimes there is a more easy-going skeptic who patronizingly says they would like to believe but the evidence is against it and they simply don't have enough faith to be a believer. A lot of believers seem to get timid when Skeptics try to play at being the "scientific"-type and they usually try to avoid an argument and in the process put down their beliefs.

I would be interested in their argument that the survival hypothesis is unscientific. We have an apparent dependency of mental states on brain states on the one hand, and a huge amount of evidence such as NDEs, deathbed visions, apparitions, apparent reincarnation cases, mediumship on the other.

But the mind/brain correlations can be accounted for by transmission theory. And the evidence suggesting survival is extraordinarily difficult to explain away using known scientific principles. In short it seems to me that the more reasonable hypothesis is survival i.e "life after death". Does anyone disagree with this?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

David B
I think that is too strong. There are reasons to doubt the concept of life after death - not least the fact that the consciousness of a living person may degrade progressively as a result of dementia or other conditions.

Wouldn't that be a philosophical reason rather than a scientific one?

Does there consciousness get restored at/after death?

If the self is "filtered" by the brain then I assume consciousness is not only restored, but will be hugely enhanced. Just to quote part of my teleportation essay:

"Thus the brain would alter conscious states, but just as a TV set is unable to change the content of the images it displays, the brain would be unable to change the substantial self. It could be the case, as hinted at by mystical experiences, that disembodied consciousness is vastly greater in scope than our everyday consciousness. But in the embodied state the brain acts as a reducing valve or “filter” which severely curtails the scope of consciousness. Arguably this would serve the useful purpose of filtering out the perception of other realities and other conscious states which are not necessary, or which hinder our ability to function in this physical reality. This hypothesis would broadly be consistent with phenomena such as near-death experiences and other mystical experiences, and accounts such as those found in the "Tibetan Book of the Dead""

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

* We'll ignore the fact that NDEs seem to be colored by culture and upbringing.

As are all of our everyday experiences. Should I thereby conclude that nothing I perceive exists?

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

Wouldn't that be a philosophical reason rather than a scientific one?



If the self is "filtered" by the brain then I assume consciousness is not only restored, but will be hugely enhanced. Just to quote part of my teleportation essay:

Well, I don't think there are any knock down arguments either way, but I do think it is too strong to say there is no scientific evidence. Remember that the TV analogy is an unproven theory itself. We don't want to fall into the same trap as some skeptics - overstating the evidence.

Of more interest is the NDE report that Anonymous (I wish he would change his name to something more meaningful!) found. I thought that NDE was remarkable because it involved a very controlled procedure - anaesthesia followed by cooling and draining of the brain - rather than a cardiac arrest. It is interesting that this long procedure seemed to result in a particularly vivid and lengthy NDE - which suggests the NDE is not crammed into the recovery period at the end, but occurs while the brain is 'dead'.

NDE's are, of course, good evidence that something does survive death - at least in some cases.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by anonymous

The NDE evidence is not that experiencers have common experiences. The evidence is that people have NDE's while they are clinically and brain dead. They are conscious and having perceptions while they are dead. These perceptions are not "common" they are "unique" to the person having the experience and they are verified by living people.

Are you sure they are having these experiences while clinically dead, and not conflating previous experiences after waking up? Are you sure their brains are completely dormant?

And one way or the other, why is this evidence for life after death?


~~ Paul