Why Are We Here? : George Ellis

I think everybody in the "Western" cultural sphere (which happens to include Australia etc.) knows about NDEs by now. We are just many who thinks that even though it's an interesting phenomena it's an overwhelming stretch to extrapolate this phenomenon to suggest that there must exist an immortal soul.

Well just what should a cautious scientist conclude from the many reports of NDE phenomena (not just Proof of Heaven) taken together perhaps with the reports of deathbed visions:

https://allnurses.com/death-bed-visions-t214844/

David

I think everybody in the "Western" cultural sphere (which happens to include Australia etc.) knows about NDEs by now. We are just many who thinks that even though it's an interesting phenomena it's an overwhelming stretch to extrapolate this phenomenon to suggest that there must exist an immortal soul.

For the most part your "many cautious scientists" don't conclude anything from a knowledgeable standpoint since it is very unlikely they actually study the many independently investigated veridical NDEs and other paranormal experiences documented in the literature, or for that matter try to estimate the probability that all these apparently paranormal experiences have "normal" materialistic scientistic explanations. And remembering that every single one is required to be so explained (to establish that black swans exist merely requires the finding of just one). The most common reaction I am sure is to brush such papers and books off without examination as mystical anecdotal nonsense, mostly confirmation bias.  Strong motivations exist for this behavior - protection of the ego from realizing a dreadful life-long mistake has been made in the supposed search for truth, and fear of very negative career consequences.

I think that a truly unbiased and open minded examination of the evidence would yield a judgement of there being at least a moderate probability of something equivalent to a "soul", and an afterlife.

Well just what should a cautious scientist conclude from the many reports of NDE phenomena (not just Proof of Heaven) taken together perhaps with the reports of deathbed visions:

https://allnurses.com/death-bed-visions-t214844/

David

First of all I think NDEs and Death Bed visions are too fairly distinct phenomenas even though there are some overlapping characteristicas. If we stick the NDE land we can with certainty state that an NDE often is characterized by changes to consciousness. But we also know of physical agents that can cause dramatic changes to consciousness like psilocybin. Apparently even a one time psilocybin experience can cause lasting spiritual change to an individual. For this very reason I think it’s a stretch to conclude NDE survivors catches glimps of an afterlife - one can only conclude they experience a changed conscious state.

I think that a truly unbiased and open minded examination of the evidence would yield a judgement of there being at least a moderate probability of something equivalent to a "soul", and an afterlife.

Definitely. Even without any evidence at all there’s a hope of an afterlife. This hope gets compounded by the various evidences like NDEs, death bed visions, synchroncities, premonitions, and more. Sadly for me even some knowledge of all this doesn’t make the probabilities sum to 1. I’m now convinced that only a strong personal experience can make one ‘convinced’.

First of all I think NDEs and Death Bed visions are too fairly distinct phenomenas even though there are some overlapping characteristicas. If we stick the NDE land we can with certainty state that an NDE often is characterized by changes to consciousness. But we also know of physical agents that can cause dramatic changes to consciousness like psilocybin. Apparently even a one time psilocybin experience can cause lasting spiritual change to an individual. For this very reason I think it’s a stretch to conclude NDE survivors catches glimps of an afterlife - one can only conclude they experience a changed conscious state.

NDE's and deathbed visions aren't the same but they both point to an afterlife that already contains the person's relatives, and both types of event sometimes reveal information that the person did not know - typically relations who had died without the person knowing. Remember also that some people that are hopelessly mired in dementia regain their wits just at the end and greet those present at the bedside.

Has it occurred to you that it may be that psilocybin sometimes gives people a glimpse of a larger reality/afterlife?

David

@sbu

Sbu, I don't know whether you have a practical science background, but if you have, you should realise that no experiment is totally fool proof - something freaky might have happened, or the computer controlling the experiment might have glitched, etc.

Ordinary science only progresses by cutting off the succession of doubt at some point and taking results at their face value.

Dean Radin pointed out this endless recourse to doubt and dubbed it the 'dirty test tube' excuse.

A: I mixed A and B and found that after gentle heating, some C was produced.

B I don't believe that - perhaps you inadvertently used a dirty testube!

A) Actually I washed the glassware in distilled water and dried it before use.

B) Did you analyse the washing water for possible contamination?

etc etc.

Every scientific experiment or observation will have some element of remaining doubt, but you just have to go with it.

Science isn't maths.

David

As I've said before, I think it's fair to maintain a degree of doubt.

Those of us who've had experiences that are at least potentially paranormal may be more likely to believe in an afterlife, though perhaps depending on the experience this could actually be the opposite.

What I object to is the idea that it's obvious Survival is false, especially when this conclusion is based on an a priori religious commitment to the materialist faith.

But I do think if one really wants to know then there is, at minimum, the option of trying to explore things one can do without much cost like seeking to have an OOBE. Beyond that one would have to try and seek out mediums.

There are things like Ouija Boards but I don't know if this is the best idea because it seems like potential trouble. Similarly I don't know if occult practices are the best idea for most...

As I've said before, I think it's fair to maintain a degree of doubt.

Those of us who've had experiences that are at least potentially paranormal may be more likely to believe in an afterlife, though perhaps depending on the experience this could actually be the opposite.

I agree on doubt. Though that does mean applying doubt to existing beliefs, not just new ideas.

As for personal experiences, those will vary from one person to the next. I don't think any of them (with the exception of the OOBE phenomenon) was something I might consider as an experiment which I initiated. Most often things just happened. The most significant ones I'd simply label as 'life' - again we all have a different path, most people face obstacles as well as joys but they don't take the same form. There isn't a lot we can do about the hand we are dealt. But we can research what has happened in other people's lives.

What I object to is the idea that it's obvious Survival is false, especially when this conclusion is based on an a priori religious commitment to the materialist faith.

Quite so. The existing worldview at a point in time does not have a special status of being obviously correct. If we are intent on questioning and doubting then existing belief is perhaps the most difficult to examine with neutrality. No-one really enjoys undermining the ground they are standing on.

Definitely. Even without any evidence at all there’s a hope of an afterlife. This hope gets compounded by the various evidences like NDEs, death bed visions, synchroncities, premonitions, and more. Sadly for me even some knowledge of all this doesn’t make the probabilities sum to 1. I’m now convinced that only a strong personal experience can make one ‘convinced’.

Yeah, one of my experiences was a powerful childhood STE where I returned back to where I had originated, with utter relief that I was finally back from the nuthouse. But arguably more important, was a childhood OBE-type experience of the scene of a break in at another house my father owned, which was witnessed by three other people. If I hadn't had these and other experiences, I too would struggle to get to where I've got to today.

Personally I find the focus on whether there is or isn't an afterlife as missing the point. It may even be - or have been - a deliberate misdirection. The subjects we discuss on here demonstrate that people do spontaneously obtain information from experiences which are not their own. And it's this (along with other scientific observations) that suggest the naive way we've been brought up to understand our experience is fundamentally wrong. That's the idea of a world that exists separately from you, as if you've just been dropped into it, and are isolated from it. This is the same misunderstanding of apparitions, as if they are isolated, and have just appeared within, or been dropped into, a world that exists separately.

As I understand it. Scientists in the main, ain't investigating a separate world that they have been dropped into. They are merely investigating their own experience, or, more particularly if we consider replicability within science, they are mainly investigating experiences which we all agree on, i.e. those building block patterns of experience which we all share. Those who now control this system of investigation, do so not to show the others the truth, but to give they, themselves, an advantage to exploit the others - through the discoveries of these building blocks of experience.

There are severe implications that follow from what I consider to be the correct way of understanding experience.

Some of them, have done a great job of keeping the others blind and distracted from what is theirs.