Does Consciousness Survive the Body?

[Sam26]

In this thread we will look at the evidence that consciousness is more than simply brain activity, i.e., does consciousness survive bodily activity? Some of the best evidence that consciousness survives the body are near death experiences. Thus, the question becomes, "Can we know that consciousness survives the body?"

There are two preliminary points to make at the outset. First, what makes testimonial evidence strong, i.e., strong enough to infer that something is or is not the case. Another way to put it, is what makes testimonial evidence strong enough to make the claim that one knows that such-and-such is the case. This brings us to the second point, which is, what does it mean to make a claim to knowledge?

Since we're considering the testimonial evidence of near death experiences (NDEs) we will look at what makes the evidence so strong. The first thing that makes testimonial evidence strong are the numbers, i.e., the more people you have saying the same things, or nearly the same things, the stronger the evidence. The second thing that makes testimonial evidence strong is having the testimony come from a wide variety of sources, such as different religious backgrounds, cultures, age groups, and from different periods of history.

What's most important apart from numbers is the consistency of the testimony, i.e., it must not be largely contradictory. There is a reason I say "largely contradictory," which has to do with testimony as a whole. For instance, you can have 20 people observe a car accident and within their testimonial accounts you will probably have some contradictory statements, but that doesn't mean the car accident didn't happen. However, if there are too many contradictory statements, then one would have good reason to doubt the testimony as a whole. If, for example, we have 20 people testifying to a particular accident, and 18 people are saying that X happened, while 2 people are saying that Y happened, then reason dictates that probably X happened as opposed to Y. Is it possible that the 18 are wrong and the 2 are right? Yes, it's possible, but we shouldn't base a belief on what's possible, but on what's probably the case, or what's most likely the case. It's possible that I could jump off a 10 story building and live, but because it's possible, this in itself doesn't give me reason to believe that if I jump I'll survive.

What makes weak testimonial evidence? If we use the example above, what would weaken the testimonial evidence? If we had 10 people saying X happened, and 10 people saying that Y happened, then we would have a very difficult time saying that either X or Y happened. This would be considered weak evidence. However, much of the time it's not as simple as X or Y happening, i.e., one or two things happening, but many things happening, so one has to sort through the many conflicting accounts and try to arrive at some consistency in which to base a conclusion. This is why one can have some contradictory statements within testimony, and still be able to find that which is consistent in order to draw a proper conclusion. The conclusion itself must be based on those statements which are consistent.

 

[Sam26]

Another important point is that in our everyday lives we often take the testimony of friends and family as good evidence. Why? Because we have come to trust their testimony, i.e., they have been generally trustworthy. However, when it comes to testimony of extraordinary things or experiences, we need very good evidence. In other words, when it comes to NDEs we need more than a few experiences to conclude that such an experience actually took place. For example, if four people say they saw Bigfoot, this doesn't give me good reason to believe they actually did see Bigfoot. Why? Because we generally don't see Bigfoot when we're in the forest. Does this mean they didn't see Bigfoot? No, but it doesn't give me good reason or good evidence to think they did. The key question is - are there good reasons or good evidence to believe the claim. Again, when dealing with claims that are out of the ordinary one needs strong evidence.

 

[Desk trauma]

No.

 

[HereIStand]

No. It's might be possible for fragments of our memory to be passed on to a computer program, but those fragments wouldn't represent a conscious individual.

 

[Sam26]

The second important point about this argument has to do with what it means to know. So we are talking about knowledge in terms of what is most likely the case, or what is probably the case. Does this argument make the case that what follows is known with absolute certainty? No. However, that doesn't preclude me from making the claim that one indeed does know based on the preponderance of evidence. In fact, what's probably the case can be so strong that it can be irrational to disbelieve it.

 

[Sam26]

No. It's might be possible for fragments of our memory to be passed on to a computer program, but those fragments wouldn't represent a conscious individual.

I really haven't made the case yet, so you're arguing against what you think my argument is, not the argument itself. Besides most of our memories are fragmented. Moreover, no one is claiming that those fragments make up the individual.

 

[Sam26]

Another important preliminary point is to ask the following question: Is there any objective evidence that supports these NDE testimonials? That is, can any of the evidence be verified by those associated with the events in question? The answer to both of these questions is yes. The testimonial evidence been verified to be accurate in thousands of cases. One such case is the following:

There are other videos on this particular NDE describing the accuracy of her accounts of what happened while she was being operated on.

 

[HereIStand]

I really haven't made the case yet, so you're arguing against what you think my argument is, not the argument itself. Besides most of our memories are fragmented. Moreover, no one is claiming that those fragments make up the individual.

From what little I know of transhumanism, it does seem to be the argument. An individual self doesn't exist, or at best it's an illusion, a collection of processes. But we can transcend biology and live on after death by transferring some of those processes (memories?) to a programmed intelligence ready to receive them and then continue to process them. I don't believe this, but that seems to be the argument.

 

[Sam26]

From what little I know of transhumanism, it does seem to be the argument. An individual self doesn't exist, or at best it's an illusion, a collection of processes. But we can transcend biology and live on after death by transferring some of those processes (memories?) to a programmed intelligence ready to receive them and then continue to process them. I don't believe this, but that seems to be the argument.

I do believe that the individual self exists, i.e., I don't believe it's an illusion, or just a collection of processes. I think after studying over 3500 cases that we do maintain our individuality after death. The body seems to be just a receptacle for the soul or spirit.

 

[ExodusMe]

Arguments based on testimony are inherently weak especially with NDEs. In most cases they are only relevant to a very local society as the testimony is only taken seriously by persons who know the person making the claim.

The best arguments for consciousness beyond the body (i.e. a soul) is for "the best explanation to ______". People assume a lot of things about themselves that only make sense if the soul exists. There are many arguments that propose the existence of the soul that make sense of these assumptions and provide the best explanation or the only explanation to certain assumptions of ourselves.

Granted, I think there was a recent study that came out saying that if you are not religious you are more likely to believe in aliens and ghosts, so who knows.

Your post is misleading because it states that the best evidence is testimony. That is not true. The arguments I am talking about are relating to human ontology like

The soul is the best explanation to...
identity over time (if a person is merely a biological product, then they literally are a new person every second as they are constantly forming/deleting cells)
free will (free will and materialism are mutually exclusive)
Consciousnesses (your OP assumes consciousness is a product of biology, but that isn't established. Modern science does not have a good explanation to human consciousness currently)
and many others...

 

[Sam26]

Based on studies of NDEs we know what percentage of individuals have NDEs, and thus we know that there are literally millions of accounts of these experiences. Many of these accounts include objective verification like the example in the video above. Most of these accounts can rule out hallucinations or illusory perceptions because the NDEs include seeing the very things that those associated with the NDE see (those people who are alive watching the NDE). Often those who had an experience like Pam's are able to describe in detail the events surrounding their bodies, including the conversations of doctors, nurses, and family members. The accuracy of the descriptions of those who have had such experiences has been verified in a large number of these testimonials.

 

[Sam26]

Arguments based on testimony are inherently weak especially with NDEs. In most cases they are only relevant to a very local society as the testimony is only taken seriously by persons who know the person making the claim.

The best arguments for consciousness beyond the body (i.e. a soul) is for "the best explanation to ______". People assume a lot of things about themselves that only make sense if the soul exists. There are many arguments that propose the existence of the soul that make sense of these assumptions and provide the best explanation or the only explanation to certain assumptions of ourselves.

Granted, I think there was a recent study that came out saying that if you are not religious you are more likely to believe in aliens and ghosts, so who knows.

Your post is misleading because it states that the best evidence is testimony. That is not true. The arguments I am talking about are relating to human ontology like

The soul is the best explanation to...
identity over time (if a person is merely a biological product, then they literally are a new person every second as they are constantly forming/deleting cells)
free will (free will and materialism are mutually exclusive)
Consciousnesses (your OP assumes consciousness is a product of biology, but that isn't established. Modern science does not have a good explanation to human consciousness currently)
and many others...

You still are not properly representing my argument. As seen in the following statement: "your OP assumes consciousness is a product of biology...," but I definitely don't make any such assumption. In fact, I don't believe that consciousness is associated with the body.

Also you don't seem to understand the nature of testimonial evidence as I presented. Not all testimonial evidence is weak. Also, you are making claims that are just not true, for example, "In most cases they [NDEs] are only relevant to a very local society as the testimony is only taken seriously by persons who know the persons..." This shows very little knowledge of the subject.

 

[Sam26]

Please read my posts carefully. Especially my post on good testimonial evidence. I'm not giving an opinion on what good testimonial evidence is. Most of the information we get is based on testimony. Therefore, it is important to understand how to differentiate between weak testimonial evidence and strong testimonial evidence. One shouldn't reject testimonial evidence based on one's preconceived beliefs.

The argument I'm putting forth in this thread is based on the following:

All of these factors must be taken together, not independent of one another. For example, numbers in themselves don't necessarily mean your conclusion is correct.

First, the number of testimonials.
Second, the variety of accounts is important along with numbers. For example, variety of religious beliefs, a variety of cultural settings, a variety of age groups, a variety of settings for the experiences, and a variety of historical accounts, etc.
Third, and probably the most important factor, is consistency of the testimonials.
Fourth, any objectively verifiable testimonial factors.

These factors, although not comprehensive, do give us an idea of what good testimonial evidence is.

 

[Sam26]

Some Christians believe as I do, i.e., that these testimonials are good evidence not only of an afterlife, but of the continued existence of the self after the death of the body. Moreover, it's evidence that naturalism is false.

 

[Sam26]

I would like to add that I've been studying NDEs for more than ten years, so the information that I'm passing on to you is not based on a cursory understanding of the subject. Not only have I talked directly with people who have had the experience, but I've read numerous books, and read over 3500 accounts of these experiences. I say this not to toot my horn, but to let you know that my conclusions are not hasty.

 

[Sanoy]

I'm confused. The OPs conclusions would be the same as Christianity in that consciousness survives the death of the body. The important part of an NDE isn't the experience so much as the fact that one is dead and experiencing. NDE's in this way are often used in Christian Apologetics.

 

[Sanoy]

I would like to add that I've been studying NDEs for more than ten years, so the information that I'm passing on to you is not based on a cursory understanding of the subject.

Do you know if a buzzing or ringing sound is a common theme? Not at the moment when one leaves the body but while they are outside the body and conscious of their environment.

 

[Sam26]

This an inductive argument based on testimonial evidence. Inductive arguments as I've noted in my thread on logic are either strong or weak based on the strength of the evidence. What I'm doing in this thread is slowing putting forth the testimonial evidence that supports the conclusion that consciousness survives the death of the body.

Please don't forget to listen to the videos in post #7.

 

[Sam26]

Do you know if a buzzing or ringing sound is a common theme? Not at the moment when one leaves the body but while they are outside the body and conscious of their environment.

Yes, it's common that some people hear a buzzing or ringing sound. It's as if one is moving into another frequency of existence.

 

[Sam26]

Also, I want to try to clarify my beliefs, because some people are making assumptions that aren't true. I chose agnostic in terms of my beliefs in a God, because I don't believe in a religious God. However, I'm not saying there isn't a God, I'm saying that no religion captures the real essence of God, if one exists. I do think there is an intelligence behind the universe, and I do think that love is the essence of that intelligence. Many of my beliefs about the afterlife stem from what I call category 3 NDEs. Category 3 NDEs are the most in depth of all the NDE experiences. I've categorized NDEs into 3 categories, which I will talk later about.