Aware II results

Established in a newborn human being. There have been made tons of phsylogical tests establishing that babies does not have a sense of self. It emerges during the first months of a life.

It's an assumption. I know for a fact that assumption is incorrect. More importantly, that's got nothing to do with consciousness leaving the body during NDE's. That occurs beyond reasonable doubt, but it's not proven, I agree. 

I do get bored with the same old questions/objections. Do you not get bored? Do you think you're being scientific throwing these old bogies out ? Have you read what Parnia has said just recently ?

It's an assumption. I know for a fact that assumption is incorrect. More importantly, that's got nothing to do with consciousness leaving the body during NDE's. That occurs beyond reasonable doubt, but it's not proven, I agree. 

I do get bored with the same old questions/objections. Do you not get bored? Do you think you're being scientific throwing these old bogies out ? Have you read what Parnia has said just recently ?

It’s not an assumption but a hypothesis verified through testing. I wonder how you ‘can know for a fact that assumption is incorrect‘?

So all evidence points to consciousness emerging during the first years of life. I think this is strong evidence against anything surviving bodily death.

It’s not an assumption but a hypothesis verified through testing.

Nope. There are all kinds of opinions on the subject, google it. The answer is, they don't know. 

So all evidence points to consciousness emerging during the first years of life. I think this is strong evidence against anything surviving bodily death.

No, all the evidence points to you being a closed minded pseudo sceptic. If that's not the case, you're doing a very good impersonation but you're wasting your time talking to me. I'm not interested in arguments that were refuted thirty years ago. 

So, please feel free to believe whatever you want to believe, it's absolutely fine by me ! Happy New Year to all psuedo sceptics and closed minded, reductionist materialists, wherever you are !

Nope. There are all kinds of opinions on the subject, google it. The answer is, they don't know. 

And again your overwhelming bias for what you wants to believe surfaces - do you even have any experience with infants/small children? Happy New Year to you too 

[Ninshub]

The notion of the ‘self’ is not established before around 24 months after inception.

That's not so. The field of psychology at least since the 1980s recognizes earlier senses of the self. See this post.

This later post in the same thread mentions an article in infancy research arguing for an emerging sense of self at birth.

But then that "self" would have to be defined for the discussion to be potentially meaningful.

That's not so. The field of psychology at least since the 1980s recognizes earlier senses of the self. See this post.

This later post in the same thread mentions an article in infancy research arguing for an emerging sense of self at birth.

But then that "self" would have to be defined for the discussion to be potentially meaningful.

To cite one of your own links in that post:

By the middle of the second year, when facing their own specular image, young children begin to manifest clear signs of a conceptual sense of their own public appearance. They display unambiguous self-referencing behaviors when a spot of rouge has been surrepti- tiously placed on their face and they begin to show embarrassment while viewing their own mirror reflection (Bertenthal & Fisher, 1978; Lewis & Brooks-Gunn, 1979). These behaviors, among others, index self-recognition.

I think my point still stands. The self emerges after life begins. The idea that it can suddenly detach from where it originates is not plausible.

The idea that it can suddenly detach from where it originates is not plausible.

I understand what you're wrestling with and the evidence that you may wish existed.  That said I would hope you can see how correspondingly dogmatic you are being in your denial.  Phrases such as the above are not supported by the "evidence" you've provided.  Its just another leap of faith albeit in the scientific dogma's direction.

For me its enough to know that science has really nothing to say on the matter of consciousness at the moment.  There is no reductive explanation, no emergent explanation, no explanation at all.  All we really know is that it does seem to have some correlation to our brains but where that begins and ends remains a mystery.

So, for me, all explanations remain comfortably on the table so to speak.

All we really know is that it does seem to have some correlation to our brains but where that begins and ends remains a mystery.

I would emphasise in that idea of correlation the conditional term 'sometimes'. We don't have evidence that it always does. There are areas other than NDEs where questions arise about reduced brain activity being associated with heightened consciousness.

My personal view is that the brain is primarily associated with control of the body and the senses such as sight. These are very much the material, physical part of the body. Also with human languages and speech. These are practical necessities of living in a physical environment, not something required by consciousness itself. For example during an NDE (and in some other experiences) communication takes place far more effectively than the clumsy necessities of our waking use of language.

I understand what you're wrestling with and the evidence that you may wish existed.  That said I would hope you can see how correspondingly dogmatic you are being in your denial.  Phrases such as the above are not supported by the "evidence" you've provided.  Its just another leap of faith albeit in the scientific dogma's direction.

I’m countering one dogmatic opinion with another dogmatic opinion. The evidence isn’t as rock-solid as being presented around this forum. To cite the Noetic Institute (those having Dean Radin as Chief Scientist)

Despite these fascinating stories, NDEs have little validity from a strictly scientific perspective. This is because the evidence is purely anecdotal. 

https://noetic.org/blog/survival-of-consciousness/

The evidence isn’t as rock-solid as being presented around this forum.

If you are referring to the veridical NDE cases, no one on here is claiming they are 'rock solid' proof of survival. The cases themselves must be judged individually by each interested person and "weighed" together with all the other paranormal phenomena. 

I am personally satisfied that a continuation of consciousness is correct, not just based on the evidence (of which there is an abundance) but my own personal experience.    

To cite the Noetic Institute (those having Dean Radin as Chief Scientist)

Radin is not familiar with the NDE literature, so wouldn't know. If that's his statement then he's simply wrong. The veridical NDE's collected during the prospective studies are not anecdotes. Parnia's Mr A for instance was collected during a clinical trial looking for that effect. 

Everyone is welcome on this forum (that's what the mods and founders say) but 'troll like' posts (making sweeping assertions that have no basis in fact) are not.