Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!! (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 16:35 (4701 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: I realize that both you and dhw probably view me as "copping out" on the NDE issue, but I really feel like I'm being dishonest by engaging in an issue where all we have is wild speculation.

DAVID: Where you see wild speculation, I don't. I see an unexplained phenomenon that begs for an answer we do not have. I've not offered an answer. I've simply wanted acceptance that an unexplained phenomenon exists and wants for an answer.

MATT: I've always recognized it [i.e. that NDEs present a puzzle]. Just, for some reason, dhw wanted to draw me into a discussion about them. Likely, he didn't (perhaps still doesn't) understand my reluctance or my responses. (Not that he's not capable, but I'm not a stellar communicator.)

For me, the basic purpose and pleasure of these discussions is the exchange of ideas and information, but also the chance to clarify our own ideas. In this discussion, you keep emphasizing the impossibility of finding a solution, whereas all David and I have consistently asked you to do is recognize that these NDEs present us with a puzzle. You have at last done so, but you haven’t always done so, and perhaps that’s where your non-stellar communication has caused so many misunderstandings. Your posts are littered with references to your “extreme skepticism”, and I’ve repeatedly asked you what you’re sceptical about. You now say you don’t think the experiences listed are fraudulent. Then your scepticism and your allusion to “wild speculation” can only refer to proposed solutions. I’m not so sure about “wild” in relation to all possible solutions, but “speculation” they certainly are (both materialist and dualist) and will most likely continue to be. There has never been any dispute over that.

However, we do need to look at the reason for the discussion. Our subject is the possibility of an afterlife. For me, this is pretty meaningless unless my consciousness and identity survive (becoming worm-food is not my idea of an afterlife). This, then, raises the question of whether consciousness is or is not wholly dependent on the physical cells of the brain, i.e. materialism versus dualism. There’s plenty of scientific evidence for materialism: we know that our mental activities are accompanied by electrical activities in the brain, and drugs and diseases can have a profound effect on consciousness and identity. Is there any evidence for dualism? Perhaps, but it can’t be scientific because science can only handle known materials. The POSSIBLE evidence is personal experiences, throughout history, of unexplained so-called psychic phenomena. In recent times, doctors have recorded puzzling instances of events observed and information received by no identifiable means, but corroborated by independent witnesses. Any speculative conclusions about the nature of consciousness should not, in David’s view and mine, exclude consideration of these phenomena. Full stop.

You wrote: “From day one at this site I said that I lean materialist.” You did (though the breadth of your interests offers a far more colourful palette of philosophies). As long as you do not lean so far as to ignore this POSSIBLE evidence for dualism, or to express “extreme skepticism” about the authenticity of the experiences themselves, or to dismiss them as not worth taking seriously because you haven’t had any yourself or because they vary from culture to culture or because they might imply that your favoured materialistic explanations are wrong, we can all move happily on to other areas.