Live data from Hacker News

A. J. Ayer – ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ (1988)

philosopher.eu

11–20 of 165 posts

Re: A. J. Ayer – ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ (1988)

#11

Things that are worthy of discussion ( such as one in this posting ) rarely get any attention.

Is it worthy of discussion because there is something actionable in it?

Yes.

Actionable: To Consider the significance of kindness, compassion, love to and for each other, which world, at large, is missing owing to many factors.

And to consider one's own superficiality and have profound thoughts for others.

Re: A. J. Ayer – ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ (1988)

#13
I don't remember anything like that, but I strongly doubt I was ever in asystole. (I went looking for occurrence rates of spontaneous recovery from that 'flatlined' state, and found only case reports - all nicknaming their subjects "Lazarus...") On the other hand, it sounds like he was a lot better perfused when he lost consciousness than I was by the time I did, so who knows, really?

Re: A. J. Ayer – ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ (1988)

#14
Probably the contrarian take, but an informed one.

Near death experiences are probably the best way we have to assess the nature of reality.

Now, it's almost impossible to reach people who aren't ready with any arguments, but I'll outline some possible steps for anyone who's on the verge.

- Go to youtube, type in NDE and listen to a few

- Try to come up with a "rational" explanation (hallucinations, the brain dumping DMT, preconceived notions from Hollywood, the general culture and so on)

- Assess whether these make any sense under the conditions that NDEs occur, and scratch the ones that don't. Then watch a few more and you'll have to reject more still.

In particular, what was convincing to me, is how very very similar the cases are and that they happen to tribes living at a stone age technological level with no contact to Hollywood, and that there is a described case from Plato from over 2000 years ago that is identical to modern cases.

In the end, my conclusion is that objective reality has to be partially rejected, and all experience is the combination of some "nature of reality" as interpreted by each individual. This leads to clear contradictions if one assumes that there is one objective reality. Case in point, in NDEs there are a couple of common stages, and experiencers go through some or all of these, most often only some. One is traveling from the location of death to a heavenly realm. For westerners this often is flying through a star trek like hyperspace tunnel, while for stone age people they might be in a canoe that travels by itself to a distant island. So the nature of it is something like being pulled silently without effort towards a point in a manner that isn't part of the experiencer's notion of what's possible, and it is then realized and interpreted by each individual in the closest way that they can relate to.

Re: A. J. Ayer – ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ (1988)

#15

Probably the contrarian take, but an informed one. Near death experiences are probably the best way we have to assess the nature of reality. Now, it's almost impossible to reach people who aren't ready with any arguments, but I'll outline some possible steps for anyone who's on the verge. - Go to youtube, type in NDE and listen to a few - Try to come up with a "rational" explanation (hallucinations, the brain dumping…

Why do those experiences indicate the presence or non-presence of an afterlife?

This claim from Ayer -- how do we make the leap from these experiences existing to being evidence of a life after consciousness?

> On the face of it, these experiences, on the assumption that the last one was veridical, are rather strong evidence that death does not put an end to consciousness

Re: A. J. Ayer – ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ (1988)

#16

Probably the contrarian take, but an informed one. Near death experiences are probably the best way we have to assess the nature of reality. Now, it's almost impossible to reach people who aren't ready with any arguments, but I'll outline some possible steps for anyone who's on the verge. - Go to youtube, type in NDE and listen to a few - Try to come up with a "rational" explanation (hallucinations, the brain dumping…

Incredibly easy to explain this without trying hard. The subject has some sense of movement forwards, and the brain rationalises it, like we do in dreams, imagining a tunnel or a canoe or whatever familiar thing is associated with that feeling of drifting or flying. So we can conclude that maybe near death experiences cause a feeling of falling or drifting, and is a bit like dreaming - not that objective reality should be rejected.

Re: A. J. Ayer – ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ (1988)

#17

Probably the contrarian take, but an informed one. Near death experiences are probably the best way we have to assess the nature of reality. Now, it's almost impossible to reach people who aren't ready with any arguments, but I'll outline some possible steps for anyone who's on the verge. - Go to youtube, type in NDE and listen to a few - Try to come up with a "rational" explanation (hallucinations, the brain dumping…

A materialist would argue that nothing you describe rules out malfunction in a brain failing rapidly due to oxygen starvation, and that the commonality of experiences is explicable in terms of common failure modes in effectively identical brain architecture. (Just about everyone's visual cortex works about the same, etc.)

I think it's cute how hardcore materialists believe it is even in theory possible to distinguish their position from ideological simulationism. Maybe in a thousand years. Not now. But phenomenology is the name of the philosophical discipline that you are now struggling to recapitulate.

Re: A. J. Ayer – ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ (1988)

#18

Probably the contrarian take, but an informed one. Near death experiences are probably the best way we have to assess the nature of reality. Now, it's almost impossible to reach people who aren't ready with any arguments, but I'll outline some possible steps for anyone who's on the verge. - Go to youtube, type in NDE and listen to a few - Try to come up with a "rational" explanation (hallucinations, the brain dumping…

If multiple people independently report the same experience (across time and space), isn't this actually evidence of objective reality rather than a refutation of it? It points to some underlying universal structure of our experience as constructed by our brains, which suggests that our brains are part of a mechanistic, external, and therefore objective reality instead of a subjective one (where our own ideas constitute reality).

Re: A. J. Ayer – ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ (1988)

#19

Probably the contrarian take, but an informed one. Near death experiences are probably the best way we have to assess the nature of reality. Now, it's almost impossible to reach people who aren't ready with any arguments, but I'll outline some possible steps for anyone who's on the verge. - Go to youtube, type in NDE and listen to a few - Try to come up with a "rational" explanation (hallucinations, the brain dumping…

Reminded me of this TED talk of a woman who had a stroke and told about the experience:

https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_my_stroke_of_ins...

> And I look down at my arm and I realize that I can no longer define the boundaries of my body. I can't define where I begin and where I end, because the atoms and the molecules of my arm blended with the atoms and molecules of the wall.

Re: A. J. Ayer – ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ (1988)

#20

Things that are worthy of discussion ( such as one in this posting ) rarely get any attention.

What is of discussion here?: 1. Restaurants should carry an anti-choking device. Too many elderly risk a stroke without it. 2. People often do have a delusion or vision just before death, one that is a product of their own brain, fitting their understanding of the world. I had an incredible vision when I had taken half an oxycodone prescribed for pain. 3. There are more ways of expressing one's belief or disbelief in…

Beyond the usual discussions of atheism and agnosticism, some would maintain none of these positions are possible to hold because they require a prior commitment to realism about ontological questions, and the arguments for realism are uncompelling.
Post reply on HN