Sunday, 30 April 2017
People keep saying that NDE's necessarily cannot provide any evidence for an afterlife since those who underwent the experience didn't really die. Presumably, the idea here is that if they didn't actually die, then whatever they experienced, cannot be of any afterlife realm.
There are two issues here. The first issue is, how do they know these people never actually died? When asked this question they say it's true by definition! They returned to life, and anyone who returns to life, by definition, never actually died.
But I submit this then makes their original assertion vacuous. The issue here is whether it is possible that what NDErs experience is a glimpse of some afterlife realm. Such a possibility can only be ruled out if we are in a position to surmise their brains are perfectly capable of having wholly produced these experiences. But, if during an NDE, there is no detectable brain activity, or there is insufficient brain activity, then it matters not one whit whether one labels this as still being "alive" or dead. From a metaphysical neutral standpoint, the most straightforward hypothesis under this scenario is that those undergoing an NDE are perceiving some type of external reality, even though the details seen might be shaped and moulded by one's implicit and cultural expectations. Of course, it might be contested whether the NDE really occurred during this time period, or it can be argued that there might have been undetectable brain activity that produced the experience. But it remains the case that this experience does provide evidence for an afterlife realm -- non-scientific evidence, perhaps, but evidence nevertheless. And this evidence could be very powerful if we have good reasons to surmise the NDE indeed occurred when there was no detectable brain activity.
The second issue is that, in any case, it's not entirely clear to me why a person couldn't experience the afterlife realm whilst still alive. And I mean alive in the proper sense as in some detectable brain activity. If we are destined to travel to some afterlife realm(s) at death, then whilst still alive it presumably must be the brain that prevents the perception of this realm or realms. Perhaps it is some particular region of the brain that does this. If this region is compromised in its functionality, or is simply not as active as it normally is, then perhaps one could still be alive and yet have some perception of this other reality or realities. If the skeptic wants to maintain that this is impossible, the onus is upon him to explain why.
Sunday, 2 April 2017
Worth watching for those who know nothing about philosophy.
What is it that makes me me throughout my life? We might say the self, but what is the self? My body changes throughout my life. My interests, intelligence, pre-occupations and so on change throughout my life. So shouldn't my self too literally change throughout my life?
In order for the self not to literally change and avoid the conclusion I am literally a different person at time A than at time B, then the self has to be something distinct from all these things. I suggest the self is the author, or the experiencer, of one's thoughts, interests, and more generally of one's experiences. That is to say that in addition to experiences, there is an experiencer that has them. Experiences don't just exist without an experiencer, or self, to experience them. It is this author/experiencer/self that we can hypothesize remains unchanged.
Note that materialists can not believe in such an author/experiencer/self. This is because the materialist would have to identify any such self with some physical thing or processes. But physical things and processes are in a constant state of change, and certainly our bodies are. Hence, there is nothing unchanging which they can call a self.
They can of course believe in a sense of self. But the sense of a self differs from the actual self in a similar way to which a sense of a table differs from the actual table.
See the following blog entries by me:
Is a "life after death" conceivable? Part 3: What is the Self
Does the self as opposed to a mere "sense of self" exist?
The self and its experiences
After death I don't think our individual selves or souls are subsumed into a universal soup of consciousness, which I regard as being cl...
As a preliminary, I should point out that I haven't watched this series of programmes, nor have I read the book that the series is based...
All 29 essays from the 2021 BICS essay contest that have been awarded a prize are now available to download and can be read for free from he...
Note: This response is approximately 13,000 words long. I have a shorter version of approximately 5,000 words that I have called A Review ...
Introduction This is the first part of an intended series of posts addressing alleged problems with the concept of reincarnation. Perhaps ...
I read the following article two days ago: Can We Explain Near-Death Experiences? The author concludes that, " NDEs are probably caused...
At the outset I need to stress that I specifically have in mind the reductive materialism that has prevailed in the West since the birth of ...
The falsifiability criterion was advanced by Karl Popper to demarcate scientific from non-scientific theories. The idea is that if one has...
Consciousness is necessarily causally efficacious It is widely believed by scientists and philosophers, and even the scientifically educa...
The following essay is essentially an expanded and updated version of a previous blog post I've written called: Why are we all so convi...
Introduction: I read the following article: Why Parapsychological Claims Cannot Be True It says: The entire field [of parapsychol...