Dualism or idealist monism as the best model for survival after death data

Isn't this almost semantics though?

I mean she would agree with you that the cases in Self Does Not Die should be taken seriously. Is the contention that you see Idealism as erasing individual identity which only applies to a sub-category of Idealism?

Because in the thesis, or at least what I recall of it, she definitely offers the option that the soul is immortal and everlasting.

It's not just semantics. The standard definitions of dualism and idealism in philosophy of mind are that they are two fundamentally different philosophical perspectives on the nature of reality. Dualism posits that reality is composed of two fundamental substances, mind and matter. Idealism asserts that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual in nature, and that the physical world exists only as an appearance of or expression of mind, or as somehow mental in its inner essence.

Mandoki, in order to espouse Idealism in the context of NDEs, would seem to have to dismiss all the empirical evidence from veridical NDE OBEs, that actually in physical life in human experience the soul or spirit essentially inhabits the brain and body, and can and does under certain special circumstances (usually extreme trauma) temporarily separate from the matter of the brain and body to travel elsewhere in the physical world and in spiritual realms, and return afterwards to reinhabit the brain and body, and report on the experiences and observations. Other such evidence exists from many cases of the reincarnation type (CORTs). 

Thus many actual paranormal human experiences at least seem to unfold exactly as if dualism is the case, and substantially validate dualism as the correct philosophy of mind.

Some of this veridical evidence is what I cited in the post, evidence that seems to conclusively show that that dualist model to be experientially actually the case. The Occam's Razor principle of parsimony of explanations steps in here, because idealism can be shown to require a number of special complicating auxiliary hypotheses to be added in order to explain the NDE data, making idealism less likely by far.

These necessary to idealism but ultimately superfluous in the case of dualism auxiliary hypotheses would include ones that would dictate that for idealism to be true, under the special circumstances of NDEs the actual mind and brain behave exactly as if dualism is the case and exactly as if there really are two fundamentally separate and different substances. I don't think Mandoki deals with this problem.

I think matter is created by consciousness - the physical universe is like a simulation running in consciousness.

So dualism as a model to explain spirits incarnating in physical bodies works, but ultimately at the most fundamental level there is only consciousness.


"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. "
- Max Planck

"Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else."
- Erwin Schrödinger

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/e...esearchers

In his treatise The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, John von Neumann deeply analyzed the so-called measurement problem. He concluded that the entire physical universe could be made subject to the Schrödinger equation (the universal wave function). Since something "outside the calculation" was needed to collapse the wave function, von Neumann concluded that the collapse was caused by the consciousness of the experimenter.[22]

I think matter is created by consciousness - the physical universe is like a simulation running in consciousness.

So dualism as a model to explain spirits incarnating in physical bodies works, but ultimately at the most fundamental level there is only consciousness.


"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. "
- Max Planck

"Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else."
- Erwin Schrödinger

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/e...esearchers

This would be a sort of two-tier metaphysics, where the immediate experiential reality of human beings behaves exactly according the interactive dualism model, but the ultimate reality (only accessible via rare experiences like episodes of "cosmic consciousness") consists of pure consciousness. Some might call this Consciousness God. I guess this scheme might be classed as some esoteric version of Idealism.

It seems reasonable to me.

Since there was contention in the past on what Mandoki's position was, here's an interview I found with her discussing her thesis work ->

Are Near-Death Experiences Real?

the interviewer is Mark Shelvock RP(Q), CT, MACP, MA

Monika: The usual approach for researchers is to gather empirical evidence to make a decision. However, as much as I respect this approach, I decided to look at the issue in a different manner. I assumed that it is possible that NDEs are real. Then, I asked the question, what would have to be true for near death experiences to be real?

Looking at reality this way, I examined the possibility of materialism (physicalism), mind-body dualism (there is a separate mind and a separate body in existence), and philosophical idealism (reality is mind-created and/or mind-dependent).

Initially, I was uncertain whether any of these theories were viable. Soon, I dismissed materialism entirely and I found that mind-body dualism does not work in any form because the theory is very difficult to make it workable.

However, I realized that philosophical idealism can work because, if everything is consciousness or mind, including the body, reality can be uniform. Hence, I developed a consciousness-only or mind-only reality where people switch from one mental reality to another when they die just like an image is changing in a kaleidoscope from one picture to another. Ultimately, I defended the reality of NDEs and the afterlife. I worked it out in my Ph.D. dissertation, Are Near-Death Experiences Veridical? A Philosophical Inquiry.

Since there was contention in the past on what Mandoki's position was, here's an interview I found with her discussing her thesis work ->

Are Near-Death Experiences Real?

the interviewer is Mark Shelvock RP(Q), CT, MACP, MA

From the Abstract: "The aim of my work is to defend the veridicality of near-death experiences within the framework of idealism."

It seems to me this is basically wrong-headed. This veridicality does not need to be defended philosophically, it is the case regardless of the mind-body philosophical framework, unless the verified details in the NDErs' accounts can be shown to somehow be "normally" explainable. The veridicality of some NDEs is well established by the existence of evidence consisting of certain information in many NDErs' accounts that the NDEr could not have received through his/her physical senses, where the information has been independently investigated and verified to have been true. Such as descriptions of details of the rescusitation personnel working on the NDEr's body, apparently observed from the standpoint of the corner of the room's ceiling, or encounters with deceased loved ones not known to be dead, and so on.

I don't think that the term "veridical" should be taken to mean "ultimately or metaphysically real", since the whole basis of veridicality in parapsychological investigations of paranormal phenomena assumes that the operational "truth" being verified is physical in nature.

From the Abstract: "The aim of my work is to defend the veridicality of near-death experiences within the framework of idealism."

It seems to me this is basically wrong-headed. This veridicality does not need to be defended philosophically, it is the case regardless of the mind-body philosophical framework, unless the verified details in the NDErs' accounts can be shown to somehow be "normally" explainable. The veridicality of some NDEs is well established by the existence of evidence consisting of certain information in many NDErs' accounts that the NDEr could not have received through his/her physical senses, where the information has been independently investigated and verified to have been true. Such as descriptions of details of the rescusitation personnel working on the NDEr's body, apparently observed from the standpoint of the corner of the room's ceiling, or encounters with deceased loved ones not known to be dead, and so on.

I don't think that the term "veridical" should be taken to mean "ultimately or metaphysically real", since the whole basis of veridicality in parapsychological investigations of paranormal phenomena assumes that the operational "truth" being verified is physical in nature.

I think you have it backwards to some degree. The way I read her thesis was taking NDEs as truth and then showing how Idealism is the best fit metaphysically.

One can disagree with her conclusion but you seem to be making the claim that she is reading NDEs as only true if Idealism is true.

I think you have it backwards to some degree. The way I read her thesis was taking NDEs as truth and then showing how Idealism is the best fit metaphysically.

One can disagree with her conclusion but you seem to be making the claim that she is reading NDEs as only true if Idealism is true.

She seems to me to clearly be claiming in her thesis that NDEs are true (veridical) only if Idealism is true. I just took her at her words in the Abstract of her paper:

"This project is a philosophical investigation into near-death experiences (NDEs). It attempts to answer the central question: Are near-death experiences veridical?
........................
The aim of my work is to defend the veridicality of near-death experiences within the framework of idealism."

She is questioning and doubting that NDEs are "really" veridical, based on philosophical considerations regarding Idealism, a wrong approach.

She seems to me to clearly be claiming in her thesis that NDEs are true (veridical) only if Idealism is true. I just took her at her words in the Abstract of her paper:


She is questioning and doubting that NDEs are "really" veridical, based on philosophical considerations regarding Idealism, a wrong approach.

Are you only reading the abstract?

Because in the actual thesis she says:

First, I argue that the traditional way of assessing near-death experiences is often oversimplified and carries an unnecessary bias in favour of a materialist interpretation, which eventually sets it up for a failure to demonstrate that an afterlife state can exist. Once this materialist bias is examined, I make an attempt to level the playing field, so to speak, to see where this equal level can take the discussion.

Once this materialist bias is examined, I make an attempt to level the playing field, so to speak,
to see where this equal level can take the discussion. Ultimately, I argue that it is best to fit all
evidence and arguments into a theory that best explains near-death experiences; and, the theory
that best explains these experiences is philosophical idealism.

This lengthy exposition has provided some ideas that can satisfy the demand for an
idealistic theory that can fit near-death experiences into it. All idealistic theories examined have
fairly well-developed visions and can fit many elements of near-death experiences into them. Of
course, some have philosophical problems with their structures, some have problems with their
theories on dying and death, some have problems fitting in certain elements of near-death
experiences and some have the combination of all these problems. It seems that all can use some
help. However, if one wishes, with the proper dedication, each can be fixed in order to properly
accommodate near-death experiences.

Seems to me she's saying NDEs are real and then arguing for Idealism based on that, but also notes that prior conceptions of Idealism may need to change to accommodate the evidence from NDEs.

To be clear I'm not saying she's right, just that we should be debating what the paper really says.