CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
If thoughts are nothing more than chemical reactions, why aren't others consciou
If consciousness is nothing more than chemical reactions occuring inside the brain, and once the brain is destroyed, consciousness ends, then why aren't there other chemical reactions that are also conscious?
Scientists do not yet understand gravity enough to create (for example) an anti-gravity device. They also do not fully understand the brain, let alone consciousness. What if consciousness is not tied to the brain and its inner workings as some currently believe? What if consciousness continues even after the brain is destroyed?
The notion that there is an afterlife is merely a result of the majority of humanity's inability to accept that it will truly amount to nothing regardless of how much it achieves in this lifetime.
History has taught us (time and time again) that there have been arrogant humans that believed certain things to be true and then some discovery proved them to be wrong. You would have imagined that people would have learned that lesson by now. But with each new generation we get a fresh batch of arrogant individuals that need to be humbled ;)
Either consciousness does not require a brain to exist or there exists other chemical reactions that are also conscious.
Hey, thanks! That was a long paper, so I will address just a few things.
Inconsistencies
I don't think the inconsistencies prove that they are dreams, because many NDErs report afterwards that they discovered that God is our "higher Self". If that is the case (and scientifically it does make sense that we'd all be one organism), then I think that would support the experiences being unique to each individual. Who is to say that god doesn't like to mix the afterlife experience up a bit? lol
Some have even said religious background plays a role in the experience, but even if the person sees Jesus, Buddha or whoever, they often come back with the knowledge that religion doesn't matter.
It is also safe to assume that not every NDE can be considered accurate. Some people make stuff up for attention. We see this in every day life as well. Some people see UFOs, some people just say they saw UFOs. Some people did their homework, some people lie and say they did their homework, and then create elaborate excuses. Dishonesty is a human trait.
Also, different cultures explain things differently. The tunnel for example, has been described as a tunnel, a tailpipe, a tornado, and so on. Language and culture barriers often make the experiences seem more different than they really are.
Oxygen Starvation
I would like to read the comparison between the tunnel that NDErs experienced and people who went through oxygen starvation, but not death. The tunnel that appears after death sounds a lot more elaborate, not to mention the people say that they step into the tunnel and can examine their surroundings. I noticed you quoted Greyson on that bit though, and it is probably the same Dr. Greyson in the video I provided, who believes NDEs are legitimate afterlife experiences. I think it said your quote was from the 80's and the video I provided is from the 21st century, so maybe Dr. Greyson changed his opinion regarding the tunnel and bright light sometime between then and now.
OBEs
Now this is a phenomenon that needs to be studied more deeply. They say that they can recreate OBEs, but don't stop to think, "Wait... WTF?". Dead or not, the fact that people are having OBEs suggests that we really are not our bodies.
It is possible that several OBE cases are as a result of hallucinations, but there are also several incidents where a person who experiences an OBE reports things that they could have only seen if they actually did leave their body.
I think a good way to test NDEs and OBEs would be to set up a camera with a clock on it, so that we could know exactly when the person was supposedly out of their body. This would of course, have to be organized early on, somehow. Maybe set up a room specifically for patients that have died and can possibly be resuscitated.
Lights flashing before eyes/feeling of euphoria
Isn't it convenient that these kinds of sensations occur at the time of death, or just prior to it?
Our brains and consciousness are strange things that scientists haven't really gotten a grip on yet. It's not like it is another planet, or the bottom of the ocean... Yet we still don't understand it.
Dead People
I do agree that when people have death on their mind, it seems more likely for them to see deceased relatives... But how do you explain the people who died and saw a deceased family member that nobody knew was dead at the time?
I find it kind of silly that people who haven't died yet are telling people what death is like. I also find it funny that scientists, who don't deal with death, think it is explainable, yet doctors who deal with death almost on a daily basis, are the ones who often can't explain NDEs. I think materialism has brainwashed society and tried to remove the possibility of anything supernatural. I think it should still be recognized as a possibility and studied with that in mind.
By the way, did you watch the video? It's pretty interesting. It took place at the UN.
I don't think the inconsistencies prove that they are dreams, because many NDErs report afterwards that they discovered that God is our "higher Self". If that is the case (and scientifically it does make sense that we'd all be one organism), then I think that would support the experiences being unique to each individual. Who is to say that god doesn't like to mix the afterlife experience up a bit? lol
The inconsistencies are not definitive proof that they are dreams, but I think they are a more reasonable explanation. The inconsistencies also call into question the typical religious ideas of an afterlife.
Some have even said religious background plays a role in the experience, but even if the person sees Jesus, Buddha or whoever, they often come back with the knowledge that religion doesn't matter.
And often they come back with the knowledge that religion does matter, so that's another inconsistency.
It is also safe to assume that not every NDE can be considered accurate. Some people make stuff up for attention. We see this in every day life as well. Some people see UFOs, some people just say they saw UFOs. Some people did their homework, some people lie and say they did their homework, and then create elaborate excuses. Dishonesty is a human trait.
I agree. The problem with NDEs is that dishonesty seems to be far too common. There is great incentive to fabricate stories. Most NDE books make the authors millions of dollars and claiming you've had a NDE will make you very famous with the religious community. That doesn't mean they are all false, but it definitely makes me skeptical of them.
different cultures explain things differently. The tunnel for example, has been described as a tunnel, a tailpipe, a tornado, and so on. Language and culture barriers often make the experiences seem more different than they really are.
That would explain some things but there are still many others that it doesn't explain, like the rainbow horses ;)
Now this is a phenomenon that needs to be studied more deeply. They say that they can recreate OBEs, but don't stop to think, "Wait... WTF?". Dead or not, the fact that people are having OBEs suggests that we really are not our bodies.
It is being studied and so far all of the research I've been able to find shows that the people aren't really leaving their body. I talk about one further down in this post. I read one account of someone who had very vivid out-of-body experiences (OOBE) on a regular basis (unrelated to death). He wanted to know if he truly was leaving his body so he started paying attention to details and he discovered that items that were in the room in his OOBE weren't really there is real life and vice versa. So, that showed him that he wasn't really leaving his body and that they were just vivid dreams. Unfortunately I don't have the bookmark anymore since it was a few years ago.
there are also several incidents where a person who experiences an OBE reports things that they could have only seen if they actually did leave their body.
All of the ones that I looked into to turned out to be either made up, exaggerated or explainable by non-supernatural means. That doesn't mean that there aren't any legitimate ones, but it definitely casts a shadow of doubt onto them.
I think a good way to test NDEs and OBEs would be to set up a camera with a clock on it, so that we could know exactly when the person was supposedly out of their body. This would of course, have to be organized early on, somehow. Maybe set up a room specifically for patients that have died and can possibly be resuscitated.
Actually, something similar has been done by Dr Sam Parnia, an intensive care doctor who has been trying to prove NDEs are real. It's been dubbed the AWARE Study. In 25 resuscitation rooms in the UK and US they put pictures on shelves where they could only be seen from near the ceiling where someone floating above their body could see them. The study was supposed to take 3 years, but it has been 6 years and Parnia has yet to report a single positive result. Now Parnia is claiming he doesn't anticipate there to be an end to the study in the near future. In other words, he hasn't gotten the results he wants, so he just keeps extending the study instead of admitting it has been a failure. I like your clock idea though. That would be much better for pinpointing exactly when they had the OOBE.
Lights flashing before eyes/feeling of euphoria. Isn't it convenient that these kinds of sensations occur at the time of death, or just prior to it?
I assume you meant lives flashing before their eyes, not "lights". My paper explained how both of those are just normal physiological processes, so I'm not sure why that would be considered "convenient".
Our brains and consciousness are strange things that scientists haven't really gotten a grip on yet. It's not like it is another planet, or the bottom of the ocean... Yet we still don't understand it.
The mind is an incredibly complex and fascinating thing and we still have much to learn. Unfortunately it's not an easy thing to study since most of it takes place at the microscopic level and finding someone that will let you cut their head open and poke around while they are still alive is pretty difficult :) They did just make an interesting breakthough, but they still have a long way to go.
how do you explain the people who died and saw a deceased family member that nobody knew was dead at the time?
I question whether the accounts are true or works of fiction. Since all the ones I've looked into so far have turned out to be fiction I remain skeptical. If there is a specific case you find convincing I would be happy to check it out.
I think materialism has brainwashed society and tried to remove the possibility of anything supernatural.
I think the reason the supernatural isn't taken very seriously anymore is because of the countless false claims and lack of credible evidence. James Randi has been offering 1 million dollars to anyone who can prove a supernatural claim. This challenge started in 1964 and still continues today, but no one has claimed the money yet.
I think it should still be recognized as a possibility and studied with that in mind.
Sure, it's always good to keep an open mind about things.
By the way, did you watch the video? It's pretty interesting. It took place at the UN.
Yes I watched it, but all he provided was anecdotal evidence, which is no more reliable than the evidence for alien abductions. That doesn't mean the accounts aren't true, but it's just not strong enough evidence to for me to take very seriously.
And often they come back with the knowledge that religion does matter, so that's another inconsistency.
Is that because they were told that it matters or because they saw "God" and an "afterlife", so they jumped to the conclusion that they should go to church?
The problem with NDEs is that dishonesty seems to be far too common.
Wait... How do you know that?
There is great incentive to fabricate stories. Most NDE books make the authors millions of dollars and claiming you've had a NDE will make you very famous with the religious community.
Yeah, I used to say the same thing. I was an agnostic leaning towards atheism not too long ago, then I had a realization that just kind of hit me. It was kind of strange. Anyways, later on I came across some NDE stories, and a lot of them were right on par with my realization. So I started being a little less skeptical of them, and a little more curious. I don't know how accurate they are, but they are interesting.
That would explain some things but there are still many others that it doesn't explain, like the rainbow horses ;)
Hey, if God exists, I'm sure he could create some rainbow horses lol.
All of the ones that I looked into to turned out to be either made up, exaggerated or explainable by non-supernatural means.
So not only the patient was full of shit, but the doctor was as well?
I assume you meant lives flashing before their eyes, not "lights".
Yeah! I don't know why I said, "lights" lol.
My paper explained how both of those are just normal physiological processes, so I'm not sure why that would be considered "convenient".
A feeling of euphoria and your life flashing before your eyes at the time of death? Normal physiological process or not, that is convenient. That's like someone having a surge of confidence before delivering a speech they were nervous about. "Oh, I'm all of a sudden not nervous anymore... Isn't that convenient!"
I question whether the accounts are true or works of fiction. Since all the ones I've looked into so far have turned out to be fiction I remain skeptical.
All of the deceased relative stories turned out to be false? How do you know that they are false? Did the people admit to lying?
Is that because they were told that it matters or because they saw "God" and an "afterlife", so they jumped to the conclusion that they should go to church?
Don't know, they didn't say.
LittleMisfit: The problem with NDEs is that dishonesty seems to be far too common.
GuitarGuy: Wait... How do you know that?
I've researched a lot of them. In some cases they admitted to making it up, in many cases it was obvious they made it up, and in other cases they got caught lying or exaggerating details to make their story sound more convincing. Let me give you a few examples of each.
-These two link points out some of the lies in Proof of Heaven by Eben Alexander. Link 1, Link 2
If you want more examples just pick any popular NDE book and Google the book name along with the word "critique" and you see just how sketchy they are.
I was an agnostic leaning towards atheism not too long ago, then I had a realization that just kind of hit me. It was kind of strange. Anyways, later on I came across some NDE stories, and a lot of them were right on par with my realization. So I started being a little less skeptical of them, and a little more curious. I don't know how accurate they are, but they are interesting.
Sounds interesting. Care to elaborate?
I used to find NDEs fascinating and thought that there might be something to them. That's why I spent so much time researching them, but after researching them I discovered the evidence for them was extremely weak and plagued with fraudulent claims, so now I am very skeptical of them.
So not only the patient was full of shit, but the doctor was as well?
Can you give me some examples of actual cases where doctors confirmed something with written testimony and not just the author of a book claiming a doctor backs up their story?
All of the deceased relative stories turned out to be false? How do you know that they are false? Did the people admit to lying?
I didn't say all. I said "the ones I've looked into so far" and I wasn't referring specifically to deceased relative cases, I was talking about NDE's cases in general. However, in Heaven is Real and Proof of Heaven, which I mentioned earlier, they both claim to have seen deceased relatives they didn't know about. Since both of those books are extremely sketchy with their other claims I see no reason to think their claims of seeing deceased relatives aren't bogus as well. It's funny how people who have had NDEs in the past never reported things like that, but now suddenly all the NDE books are claiming similar things. Quite the coincidence.
If I didn't think it was unethical to deceive people I would probably write a book about NDEs myself because most of the NDE books end up on the New York Times best sellers list and end up making the authors a fortune.
I've actually disputed the acurracy of Dr. Alexander's NDE before as well. I don't usually put too much thought in the NDErs who write books afterwards. Also NDErs who are making millions from interviews (aka Dr. Alexander). But a few rotten eggs shouldn't ruin it for the whole bunch, so the idea is to throw them out and pay more attention to the more reliable sources.
Sounds interesting. Care to elaborate?
It's kind of a long story, and I don't have much time right now. I'll message you about it a little bit later.
Can you give me some examples of actual cases where doctors confirmed something with written testimony and not just the author of a book claiming a doctor backs up their story?
Probably not lol. I'm running so low on time that I'm not sure why I even responded to this. I'll look into it later and type up another response.
It's funny how people who have had NDEs in the past never reported things like that, but now suddenly all the NDE books are claiming similar things. Quite the coincidence.
Actually these reports go back hundreds of years. I'll find that info for you too and add it in another response.
Proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, no, but proven to contain exaggerations, half-truths or blatant lies, yes. Keep in mind though that I was referring to the ones I've "researched" and by researched I mean I've investigated whether or not their claims held up to scrutiny. There are many other cases where there is no way to verify any of the information, so I have no way of knowing if they are true or not.
I was under the impression that you investigated a lot of them. So let's say you investigated twenty. Twenty NDEs, all with articles, books, and interviews. I assume the amount of NDEs reported is somewhere in the millions. So out of the twenty (assuming that is how many you researched), you discovered exaggerations, half-truths and lies. The people who came out with these stories likely wanted some attention and money... But 20 out of 1 million is hardly enough evidence to rule NDEs out as hallucinations or bullshit. I realize you haven't said that they are, but I know you assume that they are, or am I wrong?
The NDE cases I investigated were the ones that the NDE community claimed were the most convincing, but after discovering that their best cases were full of lies, exaggerations, and half-truths I can only imagine how weak the other cases are.
I don't rule out the possibility that some of them may be true. If some day better evidence comes along I have no problem changing my opinion on them, but until that day comes along I remain skeptical. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So far NDE reports consist of very weak anecdotal evidence, so I see no reason to take them very seriously until better evidence comes along.
Umm...how about we try something a little less violent. I would actually be willing to trying something like they did in the movie Flatliners. Do you know anyone who has a defibrillator that we can borrow?
As funny as it would be to watch your body twitch from the shock dealt out by a defibrillator, I would not be party to that. I'm pretty much big talk..., no action ;)
The NDE cases I investigated were the ones that the NDE community claimed were the most convincing, but after discovering that their best cases were full of lies, exaggerations, and half-truths I can only imagine how weak the other cases are.
Those NDE cases were explained in great detail though, where as the majority are not. People trying to make money off of what may be a spiritual experience, are in a sense, abusing the "knowledge" they received. If you were to have an experience like that, would you try and make a profit off of it? It may be an idea worth spreading, but trying to profit off of it seems kind of contradictory to the supposed realizations NDErs claim to have come to. If someone were to write a book on their alien abduction, I would automatically go into that with more skepticism than if it were to have been an anonymous article (Even though I am skeptical of all stories of that nature). People have been profiting off the Kennedy assassination for years. A lot of the time those stories are written by conspiracy theorists with made up information. The assassination happened though, we all know that. We also have people who claim to have seen ghosts, and people who decide to profit off of "ghost hunting" and such, because of its popularity and large number of believers.
There is some sort of experience after or just prior to death, that is obvious, but the real mystery is whether or not it is a dream/hallucination or an actual experience of an afterlife.
Have you seen the movie Flatliners? It's a really old movie but had an interesting idea. A bunch of med students would make each other flat-line for a few minutes then resuscitate them so they could see what's on the other side. I don't remember if the movie was any good but I thought it was an interesting premise. I wonder if anyone has tried that in real life.
It's funny how people who have had NDEs in the past never reported things like that, but now suddenly all the NDE books are claiming similar things. Quite the coincidence.
Plato's Republic (about 2500 years ago): "When one was freed from his fetters and compelled to stand up suddenly and turn his head around and walk and to lift up his eyes to the light, and in doing all this felt pain and, because of the dazzle and glitter of the light, was unable to discern the objects whose shadows he formerly saw, what do you suppose would be his answer if someone told him that what he had seen before was all a cheat and an illusion, but that now, being nearer to reality and turned toward more real things, he saw more truly?"
Admiral Beaufort (1792): "Thus travelling backwards, every past incident of my life seemed to glance across my recollection in retrograde succession; not however in mere outline, as here stated, but the picture filled up with every minute and collateral feature. In short, the whole period of my existence seemed to be placed before me in a kind of panoramic review, and each of it seemed to be accompanied by a consciousness of right or wrong, or by some reflection on its cause or consequences; indeed many trifling events which had been forgotten then crowded into my imagination, and with the character of recent familiarity.”
Albert Heim (1892): “No grief was felt nor was there any paralysing fright. There was no anxiety, no trace of despair or pain, but rather calm seriousness, profound acceptance and a dominant mental quickness. The relationship of events and their probable outcomes were viewed with objective clarity, no confusion entered at all. Time became greatly expanded.”
I guess I should have been more clear. I was referring to seeing deceased relatives they didn't know about, not having NDEs in general. From all the cases I've read about so far, only the recent ones have claimed to see dead relatives they didn't know about.
Oh, dead relatives they didn't know about. Yeah, but wasn't Dr. Alexander adopted? He may be making everything up, but he does have a pretty good excuse if that is the case.
Just because consciousness is a product of chemical reactions, doesn't necessarily mean that all chemical reactions result in consciousness. Just because a statement is true, doesn't mean the converse is true. For example: "if it snows enough, then school will be cancelled" is in most places at least here in america, true, but "if school is cancelled, then it must have snowed enough" is not true, because school can be cancelled for other reasons then snow. So it would be fallacious to think "If something produces thoughts, then it probably is producing those thoughts via chemical reactions" doesn't mean that "If chemical reactions take place, then it is probably producing thoughts."
I don't think it works that way, I am pretty sure it is many chemical reactions within the brain. So no, not just one, unless I am mistaken, I am not an expert on the brain. However my point wasn't that, my point was, that not all chemical reactions result in thoughts, just because one or many does. I also don't think we ever observed chemical reactions resulting in thought outside of a brain, so it most likely needs a brain.
wait, actually no... that's not how it works... converse statements, (which you learn about in geometry, are the reverse of if-then statements. "life exists on earth" is not the converse of "life exists on other planets". If X, then Y is true, that does not necessarily mean, If Y, then X, though it could...
If clouds are nothing more than visible, gaseous masses of liquid water and/or ice, why don't they all rain or snow?
Simply because something can be boiled down simplistically, it does not follow that all representatives of that thing will have the same characteristics.
Also, the premise is incorrect. Thoughts include energetic and mechanical reactions as well as chemical. You have excessively simplified the premise.
I'm not complaining. This one, simplistic as it may be, is a lot more food for thought, and more unique, than half of the other debates going down right now. Besides, I answered the question in my first statement.
