Peter Fenwick's Studies of End-of-Life-Phenomena

Well I agree with you that Idealism seems attractive as the ultimate explanation. The real problem is that Idealism seems to degenerate into an explanation that would fit all possible situations.

The same can be said for any metaphysical, ontological framework. Dualism is no exception to this. It is not a "problem" ~ it is simply inherent to any framework exploring the ultimate nature of reality.

An ultimate explanation of reality must naturally seek to provide an explanatory fit for all possible situations. Dualism cannot work, by this criteria, because there are proposed two base substances that are qualitatively unlike, yet mysteriously interact despite the inherent lack of a proposed common medium. If there is a common medium, the Dualism instantly becomes a Monism, defined by the common medium.

Propose something that if it existed would disprove Idealism.

If Physicalists could provide a pure and full mechanical explanation of consciousness, that would be probably enough.

In any case, you cannot really disprove metaphysical or ontological statements of reality, because there is no means of actually testing it. Physicalists constantly claim that no philosophical conundrum is evidence against Physicalism. They refuse to acknowledge that their ideological beliefs could be wrong, despite having no answers.

Thus from a scientific perspective, it is useless.

Science can say nothing about metaphysical or ontological statements of reality ~ it cannot prove or disprove what it cannot test. Dualism is untestable, because we cannot concoct any sort of experiment that would provide any sort of scientific evidence.

Practically, Dualism may make intuitive sense from this level of reality, where we clearly witness two entirely qualitatively distinct entities. However, we have no reason to believe or suspect that matter or mind-as-we-know-it are ultimate substances. Matter can be ruled out as a base substance, because quantum mechanics demonstrates that local realism doesn't exist, thus our conceptions of matter exist only in our perceptions. Mind-as-we-know-it can be ruled out as a base substance, because we can have experiences of an existence that is higher than the usual consciousness. Mystical experiences of union with the godhead are the best example of this.

Thus, as an ultimate statement about reality, Dualism is simply untenable.

Physicalism is easy to discard. Idealism is shaky if it proposes that mind-as-we-know-it is the source of reality. Thus, Neutral Monism asserts that there must be a higher substance that can create matter and mind-as-we-know-it. However, some forms of Idealism posit forms of consciousness that go above and beyond anything we would recognize as such ~ a universal consciousness which is the basis and source of everything else.

The metaphor of a dream feels appropriate.

I think it is worth realising that even correct physical theories may hold up science if they are too far ahead of their time. For example, if Newton had somehow intuited GR, and had used it, astronomy would have been held back and people would have returned to the old epicycles instead. I think Idealism is exactly like that but on the mental plane.

David

A theoretical scenario that you do not know would have happened nor might have had the outcome you believe.

Idealism has done nothing to hold up science. Nor as Dualism. But Physicalism clearly has, because it is the only metaphysical philosophy that claims the authority of science, and is the only one that claims that "all the scientific evidence" points towards Physicalism.

In reality, science can tell us nothing about an ultimate reality, nor can it explore it, as science was designed with the exploration of the physical world, of making testable, repeatable experiments, because the stability of the physical world allows it to happen.

An interesting perspective, though at odds with an earlier post where you appeared to be advocating scepticism.

It's important that no single perspective is able to lay exclusive claim over scepticism. For example if I have visions in my dreams of people who have passed away, there is no immediate conclusion to be drawn. Instead it is ground for questioning, exploration, leaving possibilities open. As soon as one says for example that "it's all something my subconscious mind creates" then one has departed from scepticism and crystallised into a very specific viewpoint.

There are a number of potential disadvantages of allowing crystallisation or solidification of views. Among them, a possible losing sight of other options or even trekking along a pathway which leads further away from rather than closer to what is really going on.

Personally, I've had dreams involving the deceased but they don't seem to be all the same, there are many different categories and I'd certainly not conclude that any single explanation was adequate for all.

I get your point but I prefer the crystalization approach in my arguments to make them as simple as possible! For example:

Since we can conclusively say that dreams, at least mine, are products of the imagination, it follows that such dreams exist. Therefore, when someone claims to have had a dream involving encounters with deceased individuals or spiritual realms, I conclude these experiences are imaginative, as I have no independent evidence that spiritual realms are real. To argue otherwise would be a case of begging the question.

However this not prove other people can’t have paranormal dreams. I just see no reason to believe them.

I get your point but I prefer the crystalization approach in my arguments to make them as simple as possible! For example:

Since we can conclusively say that dreams, at least mine, are products of the imagination, it follows that such dreams exist. Therefore, when someone claims to have had a dream involving encounters with deceased individuals or spiritual realms, I conclude these experiences are imaginative, as I have no independent evidence that spiritual realms are real. To argue otherwise would be a case of begging the question.

However this not prove other people can’t have paranormal dreams. I just see no reason to believe them.

You require "independent" evidence that spiritual realms are real??? What sort of evidence would satisfy you, exactly? Apparently not the plethora of evidence from NDEs, OBEs, reincarnation, past-life memories, mediumship and the like. Which leaves you with not much if you would dismiss the best compiled sources of evidence we have from rigorous studies done by individuals like Jim Tucker, Bruce Greyson and friends.

You require "independent" evidence that spiritual realms are real??? What sort of evidence would satisfy you, exactly? Apparently not the plethora of evidence from NDEs, OBEs, reincarnation, past-life memories, mediumship and the like. Which leaves you with not much if you would dismiss the best compiled sources of evidence we have from rigorous studies done by individuals like Jim Tucker, Bruce Greyson and friends.

I'm discussing within this context:

I would tend to say that all these visions should be explained together - there should be no distinction in principle between hallucinations and deathbed visions, visions induced by  DMT, etc. It is unhelpful to try to explain these in different ways.

Which is to disagree with the idea that we should explain different 'kinds' of visions together.

While I'm highly skeptical about reincarnation cases, as they mainly occur in countries where belief in reincarnation and ancestor worship are prevalent, I recognize that near-death experiences (NDEs), for example, represent a different state of consciousness that is neither 'normal wakefulness' nor 'sleeping.' So there's at least 4 states of consciousness we know of "awake, sleep, nde, drug induced hallucinations". Some speculate that the last two are identical.

Which is to disagree with the idea that we should explain different 'kinds' of visions together.

Why leave out the full paragraph...?

Returning to your 'pink elephants', it is a fact that people sometimes see things that others can't. They may have taken an hallucinogenic drug, or be ill in one way or another (if the illness disturbs their biochemistry that doesn't seem too different from using a drug). I would tend to say that all these visions should be explained together - there should be no distinction in principle between hallucinations and deathbed visions, visions induced by DMT, etc. It is unhelpful to try to explain these in different ways.

The context here seems to be that some people have inexplicable experiences that cannot be explained by mundane means or easily explained away as "delusion". In that respect, there is no difference between hallucinations or deathbed visions if they are rooted in something real, and provide genuine meaning.

While they can be categorized differently due to the quality of the experiences, that doesn't mean we should treat one as less genuine simply because of a difference in quality. We can treat it as real, but approach it from how it is experienced so we can better understand it.

While I'm highly skeptical about reincarnation cases, as they mainly occur in countries where belief in reincarnation and ancestor worship are prevalent, I recognize that near-death experiences (NDEs), for example, represent a different state of consciousness that is neither 'normal wakefulness' nor 'sleeping.' So there's at least 4 states of consciousness we know of "awake, sleep, nde, drug induced hallucinations". Some speculate that the last two are identical.

Reincarnation cases do not "mainly occur" in said countries ~ they are just as common in the West, just under-reported. Studies into past-life memories in children make this quite clear. It's a cultural difference, not one manifested by belief.

NDEs make no logical sense as "drug induced hallucinations" as the pineal gland simply cannot produce enough DMT to even cause a mild trip. And even in that case, the monoamine oxidase in the blood destroys any DMT quite rapidly, making it even less possible. The cherry on top is that with no blood flow, DMT cannot get to any good amount of cells to induce a trip, while also being destroyed by any residue monoamine oxidase.

Your understandings of these subjects comes across as rather uninformed... but we've had these sorts of conversations many times now.

Reincarnation cases do not "mainly occur" in said countries ~ they are just as common in the West, just under-reported. Studies into past-life memories in children make this quite clear. It's a cultural difference, not one manifested by belief.

"Past life regression studies" != "Reincarnation studies". Research has shown that hypnosis can create false memories, and it's difficult to distinguish between actual memories and those created by suggestion or imagination. Hypnotists or therapists conducting PLR sessions can inadvertently or deliberately suggest details, leading the person to create or elaborate on false memories. This suggestibility undermines the validity of the experiences being "real" past lives. People who undergo past life regression often already believe in reincarnation, which may shape their experience. These sessions can reinforce pre-existing beliefs, leading to confirmation bias rather than uncovering objective truths.

The quality of the evidence is just so low with past life regression Completely incomparable to what Ian Stevenson did.

NDEs make no logical sense as "drug induced hallucinations" as the pineal gland simply cannot produce enough DMT to even cause a mild trip. And even in that case, the monoamine oxidase in the blood destroys any DMT quite rapidly, making it even less possible. The cherry on top is that with no blood flow, DMT cannot get to any good amount of cells to induce a trip, while also being destroyed by any residue monoamine oxidase.

It was David who wanted to discuss drug induced hallucinations together with NDEs not me. Save your rant for him!

"Past life regression" != "Reincarnation". Research has shown that hypnosis can create false memories, and it's difficult to distinguish between actual memories and those created by suggestion or imagination. Hypnotists or therapists conducting PLR sessions can inadvertently or deliberately suggest details, leading the person to create or elaborate on false memories. This suggestibility undermines the validity of the experiences being "real" past lives. People who undergo past life regression often already believe in reincarnation, which may shape their experience. These sessions can reinforce pre-existing beliefs, leading to confirmation bias rather than uncovering objective truths.

I mentioned nothing at all about hypnotic regression... nor did I imply it.

I clearly mentioned past life memories in children... you know, studies by the likes of Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker. Stuff confirmed by hard evidence ~ memories of previous families, events that only they could know about if they were that person, memories of highly specific events that can be traced through research. Stuff children know but have no means of "being told".

It was David who wanted to discuss drug induced hallucinations together with NDEs not me. Save your rant for him!

Then you're strawmanning his comment, because it wasn't about drug-induced hallucinations ~ it was an example for a greater point that have seemingly just ignored.

I mentioned nothing at all about hypnotic regression... nor did I imply it.

I clearly mentioned past life memories in children... you know, studies by the likes of Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker. Stuff confirmed by hard evidence ~ memories of previous families, events that only they could know about if they were that person, memories of highly specific events that can be traced through research. Stuff children know but have no means of "being told".

Since Jim Tucker and Ian Stevenson together only have found a few handful of cases all together in the western world (in a timeframe of 500 million people being born) I must have missed your links to the research that prove massive underreporting of reincarnation. That's why I thought you referred to past life regression.

Then you're strawmanning his comment, because it wasn't about drug-induced hallucinations ~ it was an example for a greater point that have seemingly just ignored.

I don't think it's a strawman if both NDE visions and drug-induced visions are considered glimpses into a different realm. That's why I wrote some people thought they were the same.

Since Jim Tucker and Ian Stevenson together only have found a few handful of cases all together in the western world (in a timeframe of 500 million people being born) I must have missed your links to the research that prove massive underreporting of reincarnation.

Here you go: https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/artic...n_the_West

Stevenson and Tucker have compiled much more than a "few handful" of cases in the Western world. These cases demonstrate that reincarnation does not depend on belief or culture ~ it is universal. We only hear about what is reported, and what is not understood is so often dismissed and ignored.

The under-reported is extrapolated due to Westerners being less likely to believe in reincarnation, and so statements by children are likely and probable to be dismissed, and so the child will stop talking about them, and forget them in due time.

That's why I thought you referred to past life regression.

Please don't presume to know what I'm referring to, when I was clearly and unambiguously referring to past-life memory cases in children.

I don't think it's a strawman if both NDE visions and drug-induced visions are considered glimpses into a different realm. That's why I wrote some people thought they were the same.

NDEs are not "visions". They are direct, unfiltered perceptions outside of brains. Besides, NDEs do not start with glimpses into "a different realm" ~ they start with the NDEr perceiving with widened sensory experiences, of the physical world, albeit outside of the body. The state beyond the white light is not quite what I'd call "a different realm", either ~ just a much higher layer of reality.

You wrote

Some speculate that the last two are identical.

These people do not believe in different realms, or an afterlife. They want to explain NDEs away as "drug induced hallucinations", meaning that they are the product of brains.

Here you go: https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/artic...n_the_West

Stevenson and Tucker have compiled much more than a "few handful" of cases in the Western world. These cases demonstrate that reincarnation does not depend on belief or culture ~ it is universal. We only hear about what is reported, and what is not understood is so often dismissed and ignored.

You sent the wrong link. This only document 100 western cases compiled by Stevenson before 2003 (remember more than 60 million americans alone has been born since then), which according to the link "..the cases tended to be weak from an evidentiary standpoint.." which translates to ~0 "real" cases and then the James Leininiger case which seems to be the only spectular case from these two gentlemen. Can you please link to the research you refer to below?

Reincarnation cases do not "mainly occur" in said countries ~ they are just as common in the West, just under-reported. Studies into past-life memories in children make this quite clear. It's a cultural difference, not one manifested by belief.