Neil
New
One point that I disagree with to an extent that Alex makes is that NDEs constitute evidence for survival of death. Please let me elaborate.
Obviously we have to look at two aspects here: 1. How do you define "death," and 2. How do you define "survive"? This may cause many to groan and feel this is just semantics, but I feel that it is important since the disagreements I have heard on some shows (forgive me since I forget which exact ones) seem to depend on this.
One guest (again I forget) felt that NDEs didn't constitute evidence for survival of death since he said the patients didn't die. Alex was a bit incredulous of this statement, since Alex was using the medical definition of death, while the guest was using a definition that seemed to be that death is when you medically die and then are not resuscitated (as in you get buried).
I can see where this guest was coming from to a degree, since in my opinion, the evidence does suggest that consciousness survives medical death for a period of time, but what happens after that? What happens when death is final? Does consciousness continue in the same way experienced in the NDE? This is what I mean by "how do you define 'survive?'" I think based on the NDE research alone, we cannot answer this.
However, if we take into consideration reincarnation research as well as research on mediums, it seems we are better able to approach this question. If communication can be demonstrated via mediums after death is final, wouldn't that suggest further length of survival after death? And if someone's personality and memories can seemingly go from one body to another, as seen in Ian Stevenson's research, then wouldn't this provide evidence that consciousness can in fact survive death?
I think that these questions can be better approached when considering research from these various paranormal fields together. For example, NDE research receives a plausibility argument from parapsychology research, since parapsychology evidence is hardcore laboratory research that seems to demonstrate a non-local, and therefore non-physical aspect of human consciousness. If consciousness is non-local and therefore non-material, this would seem to indicate that consciousness is not just in the brain, which would make the experience of an NDE seem much more plausible. I think this is particularly true if you consider the similarities of remote viewing and many NDEs.
So my point is that if one only considers evidence from one particular field of research, such as NDEs, it is not nearly as convincing as when considering all the evidence from the fields of parapsychology, terminal lucidity, NDEs, reincarnation research, and even evidence of apparitions and mediums. For example, if mentioning NDE research, and a skeptic says "yeah well that doesn't mean consciousness survives death," one could response "ok, fair enough, so then how do you explain the reincarnation evidence?" To this, a skeptic may respond, "but how would you explain this?," which could be responded something like "well the evidence from parapsychology research seems to strongly suggest that something about our consciousness is non-local and therefore non-material." This is going to be much more difficult to explain away.
Obviously we have to look at two aspects here: 1. How do you define "death," and 2. How do you define "survive"? This may cause many to groan and feel this is just semantics, but I feel that it is important since the disagreements I have heard on some shows (forgive me since I forget which exact ones) seem to depend on this.
One guest (again I forget) felt that NDEs didn't constitute evidence for survival of death since he said the patients didn't die. Alex was a bit incredulous of this statement, since Alex was using the medical definition of death, while the guest was using a definition that seemed to be that death is when you medically die and then are not resuscitated (as in you get buried).
I can see where this guest was coming from to a degree, since in my opinion, the evidence does suggest that consciousness survives medical death for a period of time, but what happens after that? What happens when death is final? Does consciousness continue in the same way experienced in the NDE? This is what I mean by "how do you define 'survive?'" I think based on the NDE research alone, we cannot answer this.
However, if we take into consideration reincarnation research as well as research on mediums, it seems we are better able to approach this question. If communication can be demonstrated via mediums after death is final, wouldn't that suggest further length of survival after death? And if someone's personality and memories can seemingly go from one body to another, as seen in Ian Stevenson's research, then wouldn't this provide evidence that consciousness can in fact survive death?
I think that these questions can be better approached when considering research from these various paranormal fields together. For example, NDE research receives a plausibility argument from parapsychology research, since parapsychology evidence is hardcore laboratory research that seems to demonstrate a non-local, and therefore non-physical aspect of human consciousness. If consciousness is non-local and therefore non-material, this would seem to indicate that consciousness is not just in the brain, which would make the experience of an NDE seem much more plausible. I think this is particularly true if you consider the similarities of remote viewing and many NDEs.
So my point is that if one only considers evidence from one particular field of research, such as NDEs, it is not nearly as convincing as when considering all the evidence from the fields of parapsychology, terminal lucidity, NDEs, reincarnation research, and even evidence of apparitions and mediums. For example, if mentioning NDE research, and a skeptic says "yeah well that doesn't mean consciousness survives death," one could response "ok, fair enough, so then how do you explain the reincarnation evidence?" To this, a skeptic may respond, "but how would you explain this?," which could be responded something like "well the evidence from parapsychology research seems to strongly suggest that something about our consciousness is non-local and therefore non-material." This is going to be much more difficult to explain away.