AJ Ayer's Near Death Experience.

[uwot]

While it makes entertaining reading...

That's good enough for me.

I think the brain does some very peculiar things when it's shutting down. Perhaps it has some mechanism to make death 'easier'.

Maybe. It would be very hard to explain in evolutionary terms, as I understand them. I'm not sure there would be any reproductive advantage. At a stretch I suppose our ancestors might have been comforted by the peaceful passing of their parents, which might have made them more responsive to sexual urges and advances than someone traumatised by seeing loved ones die in terror.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

While it makes entertaining reading...

That's good enough for me.

I think the brain does some very peculiar things when it's shutting down. Perhaps it has some mechanism to make death 'easier'.

Maybe. It would be very hard to explain in evolutionary terms, as I understand them. I'm not sure there would be any reproductive advantage. At a stretch I suppose our ancestors might have been comforted by the peaceful passing of their parents, which might have made them more responsive to sexual urges and advances than someone traumatised by seeing loved ones die in terror.

I was wondering about the evolutionary aspect too. Your explanation sounds plausible, and there could be several variations along the same lines.

[commonsense]

AJ wrote: "Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that we could have future lives...
So there it is. My recent experiences have slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death... will be the end of me."

In other words, as a result of assuming that he could have a future life,
AJ is less convinced than before that he won't have a future life.

My head is spinning round and round.

[Greta]

Maybe. It would be very hard to explain in evolutionary terms, as I understand them. I'm not sure there would be any reproductive advantage. At a stretch I suppose our ancestors might have been comforted by the peaceful passing of their parents, which might have made them more responsive to sexual urges and advances than someone traumatised by seeing loved ones die in terror.

The survival advantage is as clear as your snubs.

Reduction of stress in a dying person reduces strain on the body, increasing the chances of survival, obviously. Those whose dying brains were awash with calming hormones would have had a little more chance of surviving than those who bore the full brunt of the stress of dying.

Thanks for not listening, as usual.

[Dubious]

In other words, as a result of assuming that he could have a future life,
AJ is less convinced than before that he won't have a future life.

My head is spinning round and round.

The PDF for download is not complete.

Best to read the whole file which includes Postscript to Postmortem where he addresses the confusing part...not that any of it means a crap.

http://www.philosopher.eu/others-writin ... -was-dead/

It's at the bottom as a graphic file (.jpg)

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Maybe. It would be very hard to explain in evolutionary terms, as I understand them. I'm not sure there would be any reproductive advantage. At a stretch I suppose our ancestors might have been comforted by the peaceful passing of their parents, which might have made them more responsive to sexual urges and advances than someone traumatised by seeing loved ones die in terror.

The survival advantage is as clear as your snubs.

Reduction of stress in a dying person reduces strain on the body, increasing the chances of survival, obviously. Those whose dying brains were awash with calming hormones would have had a little more chance of surviving than those who bore the full brunt of the stress of dying.

Thanks for not listening, as usual.

Very plausible explanation. Thanks for that.

[Greta]

Maybe. It would be very hard to explain in evolutionary terms, as I understand them. I'm not sure there would be any reproductive advantage. At a stretch I suppose our ancestors might have been comforted by the peaceful passing of their parents, which might have made them more responsive to sexual urges and advances than someone traumatised by seeing loved ones die in terror.

The survival advantage is as clear as your snubs.

Reduction of stress in a dying person reduces strain on the body, increasing the chances of survival, obviously. Those whose dying brains were awash with calming hormones would have had a little more chance of surviving than those who bore the full brunt of the stress of dying.

Thanks for not listening, as usual.

Very plausible explanation. Thanks for that.

Thanks for listening, Veg

An advantage as small as the occasional person surviving an NDE thanks to the stress reduction can, when repeated for even a small percentage of the previous 100 billion dead humans, result in a significant number of breeding survivors.


Dubious, good link. During this twilight existence between life and death, at some point one conceivably must fall asleep, fade to black, just as we do nightly. Either that or there may be, to paraphrase Red Dwarf, "some time-travelly paradoxy sci-fiey smeg".

[uwot]

Maybe. It would be very hard to explain in evolutionary terms, as I understand them. I'm not sure there would be any reproductive advantage. At a stretch I suppose our ancestors might have been comforted by the peaceful passing of their parents, which might have made them more responsive to sexual urges and advances than someone traumatised by seeing loved ones die in terror.

The survival advantage is as clear as your snubs.

When I read this, I thought, what are 'snubs'? I have Australian friends and family so I know a bit of Aussie slang, but I've never heard of 'snubs'. As I was typing 'Australian slang snubs' into the search bar the penny dropped.

Reduction of stress in a dying person reduces strain on the body, increasing the chances of survival, obviously. Those whose dying brains were awash with calming hormones would have had a little more chance of surviving than those who bore the full brunt of the stress of dying.

The thing I think we both agree on is that evolution is a fact, and that everything about our being here can be explained in that context. The problem I have is that those explanations only make sense if you happen to believe in evolution in the first place. It's probably easier to explain by analogy. You know the type of argument that some theists offer to account for the problem of evil; some version of: 'There is an all powerful, all good god that gave us free will. Evil is our fault, but it is better than not having free will.' Any number of stories can be made up based on a few simple premises; some are clever, beautiful, compassionate; others are ridiculous, ugly, narcissistic. Either way, the story will tell you everything you need to know about the story teller, but it won't tell you anything about the 'material' world. If someone doesn't believe in god, someone else's story isn't likely to change their mind. Same with evolution. The difference is that evolution is demonstrably the case and while trying not to sound like too much of a self-righteous pr*ck, I think that is the point that needs making and let people interpret evolution as they will.

Thanks for not listening, as usual.

I always listen and the stories you tell are always interesting and entirely plausible within a context that I broadly agree with. If I didn't, I would probably make it more obvious that I am paying attention.

[Greta]

Where are the snubs? I try to engage you in conversation ... shut down. Try again ... shut down. I complain about being shut down ... now you engage. Okay, if that's how it works ... the squeaky wheel and all that

Reduction of stress in a dying person reduces strain on the body, increasing the chances of survival, obviously. Those whose dying brains were awash with calming hormones would have had a little more chance of surviving than those who bore the full brunt of the stress of dying.

The thing I think we both agree on is that evolution is a fact, and that everything about our being here can be explained in that context. The problem I have is that those explanations only make sense if you happen to believe in evolution in the first place. It's probably easier to explain by analogy. You know the type of argument that some theists offer to account for the problem of evil; some version of: 'There is an all powerful, all good god that gave us free will. Evil is our fault, but it is better than not having free will.' Any number of stories can be made up based on a few simple premises; some are clever, beautiful, compassionate; others are ridiculous, ugly, narcissistic. Either way, the story will tell you everything you need to know about the story teller, but it won't tell you anything about the 'material' world. If someone doesn't believe in god, someone else's story isn't likely to change their mind. Same with evolution. The difference is that evolution is demonstrably the case and while trying not to sound like too much of a self-righteous pr*ck, I think that is the point that needs making and let people interpret evolution as they will.

I agree. I see evolution denial as akin to flat Earthism. It's odd given that sacred texts metaphorically describe the process of evolution on the first page. "Day" is clearly just a posited age of indeterminate length and not meant to be taken literally. I expect that the ancients would be surprised to find ostensibly advanced modern people taking their observations literally. Or maybe they would say, 'Oh, we had them back in our time too!"?

Thanks for not listening, as usual.

I always listen and the stories you tell are always interesting and entirely plausible within a context that I broadly agree with. If I didn't, I would probably make it more obvious that I am paying attention.

Okay, sorry for my wrong assumption. What about riffing on ideas that you find somewhat plausible rather than just slaying the dragons of misinformation? As long as everyone is aware the ideas are mere conjecture rather than "biblical truths", no drama IMO.

Thing is, dying is not just dreaming and trippy. There is a fundamental state change going on where, for a few minutes at least, the subjective outweighs what we think of as "objective" - our shared observations - in terms of perception of reality.

Being in that twilight state is subjectively akin to being in a black hole. The inside of a black hole is said to be sealed off from the rest of the universe, effectively a separate domain perhaps playing by some different rules within the inner horizon. The brain-alive, clinically dead patient is sensorially insulated from the universe so, what happens "out there" is a separate domain and less relevant to what is happening within the mind (barring perhaps an accident that immediately crushes the brain).

[Atla]

It's unfortunate that most people influenced by the assumptions of Western philosophy first have to die, or have a near-death experience, or maybe fall into some sort of deep psychosis, to get a glimpse that consciousness is eternal and everything. And even then it's usually misinterpreted as some sort of continuity of the individual mind, as some kind of a reincarnation, or as an afterlife, or as a God entity, or as an OBE or whatever.

[NajlaHara]

It's unfortunate that most people influenced by the assumptions of Western philosophy first have to die, or have a near-death experience, or maybe fall into some sort of deep psychosis, to get a glimpse that consciousness is eternal and everything. And even then it's usually misinterpreted as some sort of continuity of the individual mind, as some kind of a reincarnation, or as an afterlife, or as a God entity, or as an OBE or whatever.

What factual evidence is there that, quote, "consciousness is eternal and everything"?.... "or whatever?"

[commonsense]

Your assertions are forceful. Yet they give pause for significant reflection. How would you counter the off-putting questions below?

It's unfortunate that most people influenced by the assumptions of Western philosophy first have to die, or have a near-death experience, or maybe fall into some sort of deep psychosis, to get a glimpse that consciousness is eternal and everything.

Under what other conditions can one get a glimpse of consciousness as eternal and everything?

And even then it's usually misinterpreted as some sort of continuity of the individual mind, as some kind of a reincarnation, or as an afterlife, or as a God entity, or as an OBE or whatever.

What is the correct interpretation?

[Atla]

Your assertions are forceful. Yet they give pause for significant reflection. How would you counter the off-putting questions below?

Under what other conditions can one get a glimpse of consciousness as eternal and everything?

A deep understanding of modern science or the essence of Eastern nondualism or both. Usually meditation practice and a dismantling of the illusion of the ego. Although sometimes drugs, nervous breakdowns and other unusual states of mind seem to do the trick as well.

There are even some people who can simply be told these things and they just instantly get it. Buit this is very rare.

What is the correct interpretation?

Phenomenal consciousness isn't something that starts here and ends there; that idea is just a Western tradition. Only its particular contents start here and end there. But then again there is no reincarnation either, to which most Eastern philosophies subscribe.
So there is no separate phenomenal consciousness that could reincarnate or go to an afterlife or leave the body etc. Phenomenal consciousness isn't "in the body" or "just the body" in the first place. Consciousness is everything. Which is why science is forever failing to pin it down.

[uwot]

What about riffing on ideas that you find somewhat plausible rather than just slaying the dragons of misinformation?

You're a musician. Do you prefer to have the band leader cue you in, or trust you to stand up when you feel like it?

[Greta]

What about riffing on ideas that you find somewhat plausible rather than just slaying the dragons of misinformation?

You're a musician. Do you prefer to have the band leader cue you in, or trust you to stand up when you feel like it?

For decades band leaders have trusted me to play whatever I thought sounded right

Have I committed a faux pas here? I am autistic, as I think I've mentioned a few times, and have always annoyed people for reasons I never find out about. Feedback would be useful.

My understanding of the situation is that you raised the subject of NDEs for those who might be interested. I showed interest and chatted about the topic's subject matter but you bypassed the substance of those posts, only quipping in reply (and still haven't replied). Now, it seems that my contributions were seemingly taken as, not a contribution, but akin to a trumpet interjection in Brahms Lullaby? As I say, I'm not seeing the faux pas here. Are the replies too long? Should I be working towards a more modern, Twitterised mode of communication?