An impossible dream?

There has been a surprising amount of effort expended over more than a hundred years to scientifically establish the reality of life after death. Yet, while a great deal of evidence has been collected, it falls short of providing absolute proof. At best it suggests a very strong probability of life after death, but it has not clinched the case. Why?

Some would argue that absolute proof is rare in any empirical investigation. Science generally operates in terms of probabilities, not absolutes. The philosopher of science Karl Popper went so far as to say that no theory can be proven true; theories can only be falsified, i.e., disproven. If a theory survives concerted attempts at falsification, it may be provisionally accepted as true, but there is always the chance it will be falsified later.

But while abstract theories may not be provable, empirical facts are. And one would think that life after death, if it is real, would constitute an empirical fact and would therefore be susceptible of proof.

Of course, some facts are easier to establish than others. An afterlife, by its nature, would be extremely difficult to prove simply because it presumably exists on a different "level" or "plane" of reality than the one we presently inhabit. It would not be "empirical" in the same sense that a rock or a tree is empirical. But I think there's more to it than that.

Actually, I have started to think it is probably impossible, even in principle, ever to obtain objective proof of life after death. Note that I am talking not about evidence, which is abundant, but about conclusive proof, which remains elusive and perhaps always will.

I could be all wrong about this. These are relatively deep waters, and I may be out of my depth. My perspective depends on the very tricky distinction between objective and subjective, a distinction that has bedeviled people who are far more philosophically sophisticated than I am.

Nevertheless, for what it's worth, here's what I've been thinking.

First, what do we mean by "life after death"? Ordinarily, at least in Western culture, we mean the survival of the individual as an individual. Absorption into some undifferentiated cosmic Oneness might be a kind of life after death, but it's not what we typically are talking about.

But what is the individual? Clearly, in this context, we mean the unique consciousness of a particular person -- the "I," or sense of self.

And here's the rub. Consciousness, by its nature, is a subjective state.

The only consciousness we know directly is our own. Strictly speaking, we cannot be absolutely sure -- we can't prove -- that other people are conscious. We observe their behavior, and from it we infer consciousness. To put it another way, we know that our consciousness directly influences our behavior, and so we assume that other people's behavior has its origins in their consciousness. And this makes sense. It's a perfectly plausible inference ... but still only an inference.

Since we cannot know someone else's consciousness first-hand, we can only rely on other people's statements about their inner state, and on extrapolation from our own personal experience. In short, we draw an "inference to the best explanation."

I'm not denying that this is, in fact, the best explanation. I don't doubt that other people are conscious. I'm only pointing out that we can't access other people's state of being, just as they can't access ours. Consciousness is inherently subjective. As such, it resists any attempt to prove its existence objectively.

Note that this is the case even in the case of ESP. Impressions plucked from someone else's mind are known to us only because they appear in our particular field of consciousness. We still cannot experience the other person's consciousness, his sense of self.

Now, if this is true regarding other human beings who are alive and interacting with us directly, it would be even more true of discarnate beings accessible to us only through an altered state of consciousness or through some intermediary, i.e., a medium. We can't prove that the subjective state of consciousness operates in other living beings, and we can't prove that it persists in those who are no longer physically alive. The best we can do is find pointers that imply such a conclusion -- pointers that make the inference more plausible.

If information coming through a medium is specific, detailed, and likely to be known only to us and to the deceased person who is allegedly communicating, and if hints of that person's distinctive personality also come through, then we may very well feel justified in concluding that our deceased friend really is conveying a message to us. This is arguably an inference to the best explanation, if other possible explanations, such as conscious or unconscious fraud and self-delusion, are ruled out. But it still isn't proof in any absolute sense. It can't be, because objective proof of the reality of a subjective experience is impossible, and the discarnate being's consciousness (like all consciousness) is subjective.

We may just have to accept the fact that no objective proof can actually be attained in this area. The best we may be able to hope for is that we personally become convinced by our own experiences, but not that we can convince others who have not shared our experiences.

I'm not sure this matters very much, since the purpose of life is not convince others to agree with us. But those who are hoping for some slam-dunk, irrefutable, objective proof that will render all skepticism obsolete may be dreaming an impossible dream.

Comments

[william]

I deserve every comment made so I thank you for that.

The saying do not share your pearls with unreceptive minds for they will demean them has been revealed to me over and over and will continue to be until I learn that lesson for myself. I must reveal what I see in spite of the consequences to do other wise would not be authentic.

But I have learned much from these dialogs not only about others but about myself and for that I thank you for your input.

I have always been fascinated by the human mind including my own and how the mind is only capable of seeing what its system of beliefs and paradigms “allows” it to see. We are often blinded by our paradigms and often don’t have a clue. We will even make personal attacks and make accusations towards others to protect our cherished paradigm. This is called the paradigm effect and when we attack others that disagree with our paradigm then our cherished paradigm has become paradigm paralysis.

I learned about the power of these paradigms long before I started my research and writing about the mysteries of life. I taught as a consultant that we must have a complete paradigm shift in our leadership from results only to process oriented if we are to survive and maintain our wealth as a nation in the 21st century. I was told that was nonsense and not practical by most in leadership. Now that the decline of the wealth of a nation is in full force most leaders and politicians and universities still hang on to a paradigm of results only mentality and even want more of the same in spite of the consequences.

These accusations are not new to me but I must also realize that my ability to communicate this discovery into these mysteries of life that I have made is not well articulated. For this I apologize and I will continual to try and improve my written communication skills.

I remember once I made fun of a person that stated something that the spiritualists teach before I did my research into spiritualism and now I have discovered for myself that this person’s statements were valid and mine were revealing my own lack of knowing. Oh how I would like to know where that person is today to apologize to him personally for my succumbing to ignorance.

“Evolution did not seem sensible in 1859. However Darwin did manage to explain his position.”

Nothing could be farther from the truth with this statement. Most still do not understand his position and others teach his theory as fact and have turned his position into scientism and attack others that challenge his theory. Sound familiar? Most think he made the statement in his original position survival of the fittest but he was not the first to make that statement. He was not the first to have that theory. The first to make the case for origin of species actually became a spiritualist.

“You confuse controversial views with just rambling vague nonsense. I fear your arguments are the latter.”

Thank you: you just put me into a very select group of people with the rambling vague nonsense comment. No need to go into detail as to the number of those in history that have been accused of rambling vague nonsense. But why the hostility and personal attacks? Those personal attacks or accusations are very revealing as to your maturity as a soul or your subconscious or whatever is causing this inner conflict and hostility for a very good reason. I suspect the latter. Go deep into that aggression and maybe there is much to learn about that “nonsense” and/or yourself. Just some unsolicited advice and trespassing on my part.

This is interesting I in my own ignorance did not think I would get such personal in nature comments on this type of blog usually it is atheist and materialist or religious blogs that such comments occur. Very interesting and not that I do not deserve them. Anytime you step outside the accepted paradigm of thought there are those that will stand in line to attack with full verbal force. We will protect our existing paradigm and cherished beliefs at almost any cost. History tells us that.

Again thank you for your feedback.

[Michael Prescott]

It looks like some commenters are now in competition with each other to see who can skewer William most cleverly.

Personally, I think William makes some good points. I don't agree with every single thing he says, but so what? It's always useful to be offered a different perspective.

I can hardly criticize him for not wanting to discuss personal matters. I feel the same way. Some things are best left private. They would mean little to a third party anyhow. Besides, there is already enough evidence in the literature to support a belief in life after death, if one is inclined to hold that belief. Another account would add little to the existing evidence, and could easily be dismissed as "anecdotal."

(I say "if one is inclined," because I do think our inclinations and predispositions play a role in determining what evidence we are willing to accept. Zetetic Chick makes this point in one of her comments above.)

I admit that William sometimes gets under my skin (especially on political issues), but that's my problem, not his.

I also concede that sometimes he can come across as a bit pontifical, but this may be an unavoidable hazard when discussing "spiritual" issues.

[dmduncan]

Sometimes it's just good for everyone to lighten up a bit and have a laugh.

[Ben]

We should all be able to take a joke, but isn't this getting a bit like ganging up on someone in the playground?

Sometimes, William has the power to surprise.

[Michael H]

Right. When I talk about mindfulness, I just mean shutting off the stream of words in one's head as much as possible.

I agree with this MP, but I will say that I’ve personally found that just noticing the commentary tends to quiet it down – and also that making an effort to quiet it down doesn’t seem to work very well for me. The running commentary seems to be just part of the human condition, and it’s really easy to habitually slip into the state of paying inordinate attention to it. On the other hand, if I can just see it as amusing - not take it so seriously - it tends to lessen it. That doesn’t mean I’m always successful though. There are some days when my head is just filled with noise. The best I can seem to do on those days is to try to not make any major decisions.

In regards to the left/right hemisphere speculation, Jill Bolte Taylor, the neuroscientist who’s written about her experience during her stroke, would entirely agree with you.

Do you believe personally Michael H that mediumship and all séances only reveal ghosts and some super sensual phenomenon? Please don’t confuse this question with any form of how to attain enlightenment or insights that is another subject matter.

I think you’re missing Tagore’s point, William. As I interpret him, he’s saying that arriving at spiritual truth is always an individual event, and that searching for spiritual truth in the outside world can never yield genuine fruit. What I would add to that is that if we do investigate outside sources, we will come across inspirational thoughts and ideas – maybe even quite often. It’s all over the place – it’s at the core of every religion on earth, and it does show up in mediumistic communications as well. There are thousands, if not millions, of people throughout the centuries that have realized the deeper reality that undergirds existence.

But I would also say that the reason we find certain things inspirational is that those things are resonating with our own individual wisdom. Whenever we find something that inspires us, that inspiration is actually felt from within ourselves – it doesn’t come from the outside source, although it may appear to. Inspirational writings trigger something within the higher aspect of ourselves, and it is the higher aspect of ourselves which resonates with us and elevates our spirit, raises our feeling state.

As an example in the realm of mediumistic communications, I recently came across a book written via automatic writing by an American doctor by the name of George Fuller, published in 1916. Once I get past all the formal, archaic English – the thou’s, art’s, ye’s and all the rest – I find that this work is incredibly inspirational, pointing furiously to truth – but it’s not truth itself. It’s just an interpretation of truth.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/wota/index.htm

It’s a distinction that is lost on many people – but there’s always been only one way to arrive at genuine truth, and it is always an individual event. Thomas Paine famously addressed this point in the Age of Reason, writing that the realization of truth “. . . is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it".

Buddha understood this – stating that no one should believe a word he said. So what happened? Buddhism developed into a hopelessly complex belief system with multiple branches – those who accept Buddhism as truth itself will likely come to accept the idea that “enlightenment” is some far-off event that one can arrive at only through decades (or multiple lifetimes) of intense meditative practice. By accepting the belief system of Buddhism, those individuals keep themselves from realizing that they’re already enlightened, and end up spending decades (or multiple lifetimes) in order to arrive at something they already have.

So, William, when you casually write that the “door is very narrow and nearly shut”, you’re essentially repeating a load of nonsense that serves to do absolutely nothing except support other nonsense - such as “Christ is the only son of God”, or that “enlightenment” takes some enormous, herculean effort.

And those who choose to take any of these ideas as “the truth” are unwittingly keeping themselves from seeing that the door is actually wide open - that they’ve always known the truth, and just hadn’t realized it before.

[william]

“So, William, when you casually write that the “door is very narrow and nearly shut”,

Maybe you did not read my correction on this matter: The door is nearly shut for all not in a literal sense but in a sense that few make an attempt to go through that door. Maybe better to state that the path to that door is very narrow. All are called few choose that path for a variety of reasons. Therefore it is very narrow; it was a poor analogy. I did make a correction that I had not communicated my thoughts well and that maybe you did not see. But once stated one has to live with it as politicians learn the hard way.

From my point of view enlightenment is not the end game but a realization or realizations in our what may be a never-ending evolution of our consciousness to greater awareness of our divine Being. We are gods in the making with future creative potential and awareness that we can only imagine at this time.

I spent a good deal of effort and time into realizations and enlightenment in the 90’s and from my point of view it is very beneficial but is only one phase of the development of the soul. Brunton actually stated he thought many so called enlightened one’s would actually reincarnate again into a western culture to learn new lessons in life. Seeking enlightenment can be a very selfish mode of being in the world and can often be spiritual ambition. Boy I will pay a price for that comment.

As a off topic it appears that the Buddha saw ignorance but it also appears that Jesus may have seen the innocence that is the underlying reality of that ignorance. It is also interesting that very few Buddhists monks know what the Buddha realized and confuse symptoms such as attachment and craving with the origin of suffering.

“I think you’re missing Tagore’s point, William. As I interpret him, he’s saying that arriving at spiritual truth is always an individual event, and that searching for spiritual truth in the outside world can never yield genuine fruit”

I took his words as literal that one will only find ghosts and super sensuous whatever and I think you are reading something into his words. I agree one will find ghosts and super sensuous entities but one will find much more. There is more to spiritualism then ghosts and super sensuous entities. This is not about enlightenment but the infinite levels of expressions of that that is. I think it is very dualism thinking to believe there is suffering and then there is enlightenment then nirvana. I suspect the Buddha is in one of these higher dimensions teaching his words of wisdom on ignorance or more.

The most advanced teachings I have found came from an entity from the other side and these teachings in my view are far more advanced then the “Buddha’s” or any religion. It is also interesting to note that these teachings also teach a middle path. This entity would not reveal its former earth identity so who knows the “Buddha” or a Buddha? Just a thought.

I think the Buddhists and most religions have missed an important underlying reality of consciousness and have looked at humankind as some form of fallen consciousness rather than an expression of that that is and perfectly imperfect. State another way the ego desperately wants to take responsibility for its fallen status and feel guilt, which is self-confirmatory to self as a separate entity. When one has knowledge of the origin of ignorance this is revealed to oneself. Until that occurs this is as one commented airy fairy. One profound “aspect” of that expression and evolution of consciousness is enlightenment.

We are not victims of ignorance as some suggest but we are expressions of Oneness or Isness and without that ignorance that has its origin in innocence infinite Oneness or Isness cannot express “its” infinite potential without innocence. Infinite Oneness becomes many only by the expression of innocence.

http://www.evolutionaryspirituality.com/ this may be an interesting tele seminar and it claims to be free.

[The Major]

"It looks like some commenters are now in competition with each other to see who can skewer William most cleverly."

It is interesting how an atmosphere of snark develops. I'm sure many of us deride the JREF boards for this reason, so it's interesting to see it happens on a blog like this.

[Michael Prescott]

"it's interesting to see it happens on a blog like this."

Yes, I find that very discouraging.

[s.wood]

Yes, I'm surprised by the persistence. A joke's a joke but....

[dmduncan]

...but God doesn't laugh.

[william]

“It’s a distinction that is lost on many people – but there’s always been only one way to arrive at genuine truth, and it is always an individual event. Thomas Paine famously addressed this point in the Age of Reason, writing that the realization of truth “. . . is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it".

This is very well stated and has much wisdom to ponder. I prefer the teaching of the “realization of a truth” rather then “realization of truth” but I know that will be considered controversial. Here is quote from a teaching quoted below that is more in line with what I believe is an evolution of consciousness process to greater and greater understanding through the process of realizations. That last sentence of Paine’s is supreme wisdom.

“To each of you well be revealed only that which you are best fitted by nature and environment to assimilate and if you understand this law there will be no necessity for discord. Discord always arises out of the attempt to make others see the truth as you see it before they ready for it.”

“As there are different degrees of knowledge so are there different degrees of truth, different grades or steps in the approach to the Underlying Reality. As one gets closer a glimpse of some truth it will appear to him in a different light and perhaps he will not recognize it, but everything is some reflection or shadow of the Underlying Reality, which is Being, which is what you call your Selfhood, or Universal Consciousness, or God. So do not regard anything as false for all things are true in their degrees.”

“or that “enlightenment” takes some enormous, herculean effort.”

I am not sure effort has much to do with a realization of a truth. It appears to me it has more to do with one’s sincere interest and humility. I think effort especially Herculean effort can often become spiritual ambition.

“So, William, when you casually write that the “door is very narrow and nearly shut”, you’re essentially repeating a load of nonsense that serves to do absolutely nothing except support other nonsense - such as “Christ is the only son of God”,

If you are able to understand the teachings of this “intelligence” in the above quotes then nothing is nonsense but rather all things are true in their degrees. This particular teaching has helped me to become less judgmental towards those that make such statements, as Christ is the only Son of God and other religious dogma.

We could state that nothing is false or nonsense or airy fairy but rather all things are true in their degrees. Or not. Ok I know but I love the airy fairy comment that is a first for me. It has become part of my view of the world and its ignorance.

This approach or teachings appears to me as more compassionate and sees the innocence in all.

“...but God doesn't laugh.”

That’s too bad because with we humans there is a lot to laugh about.

[dmduncan]

"That’s too bad because with we humans there is a lot to laugh about."

lol. And that's the truth, William. Once again I will mention Native America. Among the Lakota are spiritual persons called Heyoka. They are basically a sort of clown, and during the Lakota's most sacred ceremony, the Sundance, when dancers are going through a grueling 4 day long prayer dancing under the sun, the Heyokas do everything the opposite from everyone else. They dress funny, they walk backwards, they try to make the dancers laugh a bit. Because in breaking the seriousness I think it actually helps your endurance.

I think there's a danger in being so spiritually serious that you actually advance backwards on your trail, and miss relevant points of interest.

And you know what I found really interesting about the Laughing Yogi? He's so serious in his phony laughter that it strikes one as absurd, and even though there's nothing to laugh at, it instantly becomes hilarious and I find myself laughing at what he's doing. Which may be his intention all along. It's paradoxical. But it works.

And the Japanese Zen girl. Well, what's not to like about a gorgeous babe who isn't afraid to fart loudly during Yoga?

[Ryan]

Hey, William, keep dropping those pearls :-). You are are a unique voice here on this blog.

[Ryan]

Well, two ares are better than one! Shame we can't edit our posts. My fault for not hitting preview (which actually is not available unless I allow Javascript).

[s wood]

dmduncan,
I didn't realise that God had posted on here. You're not claiming divinity, are you ?

[Art]

"It is interesting how an atmosphere of snark develops. I'm sure many of us deride the JREF boards for this reason, so it's interesting to see it happens on a blog like this." - The Major
--------------------------------------------

It happens everywhere and on every message board I've ever particpated on. It is inescapable. Duality and separation seem to be inherent and inescapable properties of the physical universe and message boards, and blog comment boards, seem to be as good a way as any to experience duality and separation. Can't experience and learn it "there" so our soul's have to learn what it means and how it feels to be separate "here."

[william]

Art I just watched a movie and thought of you. It was dragon fly with Kevin Costner and was about near death experiences. If you have not seen it you may find it interesting it has lots of drama in it and lots of rejection of such “nonsense” by materialists.

“He's so serious in his phony laughter that it strikes one as absurd, and even though there's nothing to laugh at,”

That is somewhat what I found as I have been to a laughing yoga classes three times. It tries to induce laughter but it comes across as put on not authentic. Pure laughter is very beneficial to the body and mind and I think what they have discovered is that one can “fool” the body and create the same beneficial effects as authentic laughter.

“Hey, William, keep dropping those pearls :-). You are a unique voice here on this blog.”

Thanks for the feedback. Actually my sincere interest is to see if there is one sentence one phase that will create an insight or whatever that allows another to see that without our innocence there is no we just Isness. It took a realization about an understanding of variation as it relates to the relative phenomenal world, much fate, many books, long hours of meditation, several teachers, suspected spiritual guidance, then a discovery before I was able to see with clarity that suffering has its origin in ignorance and ignorance has its origin and underlying reality in our original and eternal innocence.

That was probably more then you wanted to know but look at the upside of this discovery it will challenge the most cherished paradigm we have; which is we are not fallen souls but souls on a journey that started with our original innocence and we are always innocent as a spiritual entity or being. It will also challenge the idea that guilt is a healthy response to error or sins. Guilt is one of the most cherished and hidden ego gratifications and self-confirmatory ideations we have as a human and even as a soul.

It is normal and expected to experience such rejection this will be a paradigm shift of the highest order. And I thought teaching being process oriented over results only oriented to senior leadership and management was a paradigm shift; that is child’s play compared to seeing the underlying reality or origin of ignorance as innocence.

As far as so called snark remarks little do those that make such remarks realize that they reveal much about their character, level of consciousness as it relates to personal integrity and self worth, and of course their level of ignorance and of course that ignorance has its origin and underlying reality in innocence.

A spiritual law or principle exists that what we do or say to others we do to ourselves; and what we do to the least of those we do to ourselves. Now we cannot always see this principle in action due to our level of unawareness and these other dimensions that are hidden from our view. The universal or cosmic consciousness is like a giant mirror reflecting right back to us what we reflect to it.

Thanks for reading if these words sound insane then just have a good laugh on me.

[Matt Chait]

dmduncan,
I don't doubt the wisdom of your teaching, but I wonder about your timing. For me it's easier to fart first and then laugh afterward.

[Art]

Hey William, We've seen Dragonfly. We liked it. I usually make an extra special effort to see what I call "life after death" movies. I like to support them because I am just endlessly fascinated by the idea of life after death.

I figure we are going to spend a whole lot more time in eternity than we are in this physical universe. This life is so short and temporary. No matter how good (or well?) you take care of yourself one day we will all die. 100% guaranteed! I doubt it matters too much what we believed while we are here; one day we will all find out how close to the truth our speculations were!

I guess the most recent "life after death" movie we went to see was Ghost Town with Ricky Gervais, Tea Leoni, and Greg Kinnear as a dentist who has a NDE and ends up being able to talk to Ghosts.

This weekend a new movie comes out called "The Lovely Bones" which is about a little girl who is murdered and comes back to help her dad solve her murder. My wife listened to the book on tape on her way to work (she drives 41 miles to work in Nashville every day) and she liked it. She read on line that there are some scenes in the movie of what is supposed to be Heaven. I'm curious to see how they picture it?

One last thought? I've also read that the book Alice in Wonderland is sort of a NDE book? Or is a metaphor or analogy of an NDE? There is a new movie coming out with Johnny Depp called Alice in Wonderland and figure I'll have to go see that because supposedly Lewis Carroll had some kind of NDE or drug induced mystical experience before he wrote it?

[Michael Prescott]

I've read "Alice in Wonderland" and its sequel. I didn't notice any parallels with NDEs, though admittedly I wasn't looking for them. Conceivably Alice's fall down a rabbit hole could correspond to the tunnel experience.

A little Googling turned up a master's thesis about NDEs in Western culture, which includes a brief discussion of Alice:

http://tiny.cc/z8QSq

From this paper:

"Alice in 'Alice in Wonderland' entered her fantastic otherworld by falling into a dark hole ... imagery suggestive of the tunnel motif which abounds in the modern NDE. Additionally, in Alice’s trip into her mirror in 'Through the Looking Glass,' she sees a reverse optical doubling of herself which is reminiscent of similar experiences reported during some out-of-body experiences reported in modern NDE accounts. Throughout each of these fantasy works, common NDE phenomena, such as the separation of consciousness from the body, movement by floating or flying, and the radical distortion of time and space, are specifically suggested."

Hmm. Maybe. They're great stories anyway, regardless of their source.

[william]

I thought it interesting that all of the information that came through in dragon fly no one said the words baby. For those that are new to this blog Kevin Williams has a nice selection of NDE stories on his blog. Just last week two people told me about their NDE’’s and one kept it to herself for about 30 years; figured no one would believe her. She had left her body while having a child, as there were toxic complications with her pregnancy.

The other lady had an NDE at six years old and met a person grandfather I think that told her she has more stories to live in her life. She is now a Bikram yoga instructor maybe that is one of her stories to live. She attended the same university in the Midwest that I taught at during the same time I taught but apparently we did not connect with each other there at that time in our lives. We did not meet until we both took classes at Bikram yoga.

Stories like this where we have crossed paths before reaffirm my belief that we exist in soul groups of 4 to 8 sometimes more and then expand out from there to larger and larger groups. This aspect of the other side that we exist in soul groups appears to validate well with my research.

I now find it interesting at least to me that when I used to put workers in teams to work on continuous improvement projects the best team size always appeared to be 4 to 8 people with six often the most ideal and this was long before I knew anything about these other dimensions. Effective team sizes may not be all that different in this world and others.

[dmduncan]

"dmduncan,
I don't doubt the wisdom of your teaching, but I wonder about your timing. For me it's easier to fart first and then laugh afterward."

I think too much seriousness leads to too much abstract thinking about what may or may not be the case, which laughter is a good way to break out of. And although I don't know of any research to back it up, I think it's probably better for you.

Did anyone not find the Yoga girl funny?

And William is a good guy. He doesn't return snark with snark, which is something lots of us could stand to emulate, myself included.

[jack]

RE: flat eeg does not equal dead

Lyall Watson, in "the Romeo Error" has some references to this and to yogis tested at hospital.
I regret that I do not have the book as I returned it to the library.
As a biologist he analyses the difficulty of deciding
the distinction between life and death
Fascinating

[Michael Prescott]

"flat eeg does not equal dead"

Right, but the question is: Can consciousness operate when the EEG is flat?

A person can be unconscious but still alive. Near-death patients are still alive.

The issue involves whether or not the brain is capable of complex activity (elaborate narratives and symbolism, etc.) with a flat EEG.

[jack]

If a yogi choses to put himself into a state in which there is no eeg, and also comes out of that state there would seem to be some form of consciousness. (continuation of an "I")
Whether that is "complex" is another question
We say "He was barely alive..." but rarely say
"he was barely dead.."
The organ transplant people can't be too happy with Watson's analyis!