Does consciousness survive death? A BBC investigation.

  • Thread starter Forestman
  • Start date
In summary: All well and good, but I'd like some sources to back all of this up. Preferably published papers and not just anecdotal evidence.I can't prove to you what I have told you, but I can promise you that it has come from people who have credentials. These are two good book that I recently read on the subject.https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061452572/?tag=pfamazon01-20https://www.amazon.com/dp/0743436598/?tag=pfamazon01-20
  • #1
Forestman
212
2


There is a tremendous amount of evidence that consciousness survives death. Watch all 6 parts though before replying.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Forestman said:


There is a tremendous amount of evidence that consciousness survives death. Watch all 6 parts though before replying.


Death: "the permanent end of all life functions in an organism or part of an organism". That includes consciousness. Thus you can't bring evidence for consciousness after death. The "evidence" takes form of stories from people having near death experiences.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
There is absolutely zero evidence.

NDE's are easily explainable and certainly don't constitute valid evidence.
 
  • #4
jarednjames said:
There is absolutely zero evidence.

NDE's are easily explainable and certainly don't constitute valid evidence.

I had a chance to chime in for a day or two here so I wanted to throw in my two-cents worth.

The mystery is the claim that memories of real events formed while the person had no measurable brain function.
 
  • #5
jarednjames said:
There is absolutely zero evidence.

NDE's are easily explainable and certainly don't constitute valid evidence.

Why NDE's are not explainable with current materialistic thinking
Oxygen deprivation does not produce clear thinking hyper real experiences, but instead produces bizarre hallucinations.
The materialistic view of consciousness cannot explain how patients learn things that they could not have been aware of during their out of body experience.
Endorphins cannot account for the pleasurable experience brought on by a NDE because endorphins produce a relaxed state of mind, not one that is super fast and realer than real.
Stimulation of the right temporal lobe cannot account for the life review. Temporal lobe stimulation produces random memories, not a full life time of them.
The materialistic view of consciousness cannot explain how blind people can see during their out of body experience.
The materialistic view of consciousness cannot explain how people can learn things during their NDE, that later turn out to be true. For example, learning about a relative who has died or a sister or bother who died before they were born, and were never told about.
It has been shown through cases like Pam Reynolds (who was on the video) that many NDE's happen when a persons brain is flatlined.
 
  • #6
Forestman said:
Why NDE's are not explainable with current materialistic thinking
Oxygen deprivation does not produce clear thinking hyper real experiences, but instead produces bizarre hallucinations.
The materialistic view of consciousness cannot explain how patients learn things that they could not have been aware of during their out of body experience.
Endorphins cannot account for the pleasurable experience brought on by a NDE because endorphins produce a relaxed state of mind, not one that is super fast and realer than real.
Stimulation of the right temporal lobe cannot account for the life review. Temporal lobe stimulation produces random memories, not a full life time of them.
The materialistic view of consciousness cannot explain how blind people can see during their out of body experience.
The materialistic view of consciousness cannot explain how people can learn things during their NDE, that later turn out to be true. For example, learning about a relative who has died or a sister or bother who died before they were born, and were never told about.
It has been shown through cases like Pam Reynolds (who was on the video) that many NDE's happen when a persons brain is flatlined.

All well and good, but I'd like some sources to back all of this up. Preferably published papers and not just anecdotal evidence.
 
  • #8
Forestman said:
I can't prove to you what I have told you, but I can promise you that it has come from people who have credentials. These are two good book that I recently read on the subject.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061452572/?tag=pfamazon01-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0743436598/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Well unfortunately humans are not good with things like this and until some valid research is shown anecdotal evidence just isn't going to cover it.

I'm not impressed with links to books. There should be peer reviewed papers on this if it's substantial enough and not simply books put out there by people to make money.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
It's their heart that flatlines. To my knowledge no one has been revived after true brain death. Also, many people that claim NDE's had visions of *Hell*. Odd that almost all NDE's are Christian?

Here is an article about some of the studies, but they are not the studies themselves.

That’s not the afterlife – it’s a brainstorm
Near-death experiences may be caused by a cascade of electrical activity in the dying brain

DOCTORS believe they may have found the cause of the powerful spiritual experiences reported by people “brought back from the dead”.

A study of the brainwaves of dying patients showed a surge of electrical activity in the moments before their lives ended.

The researchers suggest this surge may be the cause of near-death experiences, the mysterious medical phenomena in which patients who have been revived when close to death report sensations such as walking towards a bright light or a feeling that they are floating above their body.

Many people experience the sensation as a religious vision and treat it as confirmation of an afterlife. However, the scientists behind the new research believe that is wrong.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/medicine/article7140165.ece

Another good read with references.

http://www.skepdic.com/nde.html
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Evo said:
It's their heart that flatlines. To my knowledge no one has been revived after true brain death.

According to Parnia, brain function stops shortly after the heart stops. The point of the study was to focus on people who had been clinically dead - no brain function. The key to his most famous case is that memories of specific events allegedly formed while the patient was clinically dead - memories that could be checked for accuracy.

A flat EEG and cell death [brain death] are not the same thing.

This is one paper but only for a fee. There is another that was public... I'll try to find it later, but I don't know if that was published in a proper journal.
http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572(00)00328-2/abstract
 
  • #11
Ivan Seeking said:
According to Parnia, brain function stops shortly after the heart stops. The point of the study was to focus on people who had been clinically dead - no brain function. The key to his most famous case is that memories of specific events allegedly formed while the patient was clinically dead - memories that could be checked for accuracy.

A flat EEG and cell death [brain death] are not the same thing.

This is one paper but only for a fee. There is another that was public... I'll try to find it later, but I don't know if that was published in a proper journal.
http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572(00)00328-2/abstract
Parnia's work is mentioned in the second article i posted.

Here is an article about it. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/33055601/ns/today-today_health/

This link has an update with an hour long video of a talk about the study from Parnia himself in 2010.

http://www.skeptic.org.uk/news/2010/2494 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
By Evo "It's their heart that flatlines. To my knowledge no one has been revived after true brain death. Also, many people that claim NDE's had visions of *Hell*. Odd that almost all NDE's are Christian?"

You should watch all six parts of that movie. Especially about Pam Reynolds.

What I was saying is that their EEG had flatlined. It was just a bad use of words on my part to say brain, but EEG was what I meant.

Also NDE's occur cross culturally all around the world, and most of them contain the same core elements.

http://www.nderf.org/non_western_ndes.htm

I am aware of the Hellish ones as well. There are actually three types of negative NDE's.
Inverted
The void
And hellish
 
Last edited:
  • #13
You should watch all six parts of that movie. Especially about Pam Reynolds.

What I was saying is that their EEG had flatlined. It was just a bad use of words on my part to say brain, but EEG was what I meant.

Also NDE's occur cross culturally all around the world, and most of them contain the same core elements.

http://www.nderf.org/non_western_ndes.htm

I am aware of the Hellish ones as well. There are actually three types of negative NDE's.
Inverted
The void
And kellish

I'm waiting for something (from everyone not just yourself) that shows a person has a vivid memory of an event occurring in NDE form and then that person recalling it accurately as a memory - no input from other parties.

It is widely known (particularly revolving around group hysteria) that people will recall things that simply didn't happen / they didn't witness, but what others around them are saying / doing makes them believe they did.

So far, all I've seen is a lot of anecdotal evidence at best so far as people recalling "what happened" goes.

That website is not evidence in the slightest. It is full of religion and all anecdotal. I haven't found one published paper on it and only books for sale.
 
  • #14
jarednjames said:
I'm waiting for something (from everyone not just yourself) that shows a person has a vivid memory of an event occurring in NDE form and then that person recalling it accurately as a memory - no input from other parties.

It is widely known (particularly revolving around group hysteria) that people will recall things that simply didn't happen / they didn't witness, but what others around them are saying / doing makes them believe they did.

So far, all I've seen is a lot of anecdotal evidence at best so far as people recalling "what happened" goes.

That website is not evidence in the slightest. It is full of religion and all anecdotal. I haven't found one published paper on it and only books for sale.
Yeah, the doctors are now saying that an EEG is not sensitive enough. They have picked up activity with fMRI when an EEG shows nothing. The people are *near* death, not dead, so it could be a dream, hallucination, etc... There is a lot of good information in the articles I posted.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
If I sound rude I don't mean too I am just trying to be to the point.

It takes a lot of brain activity just to dream, so how is a tiny bit of almost unmesurable brain activity going to create an experience that feels realer than reality, with the person pocessing all of their emotions and cognitive functions. And their cognitive functions and emotions being increased. Plus there are profound personality changes in people that have these experiences. Most of them become very altruistic. And not only from the good ones either. If a person is able to learn from a hellish one then they too are transformed for the better.

And I am not just one of those people that believe because I want to believe. I am not religious or a new ager. I started out as an atheist, but when I looked at the evidence with an open mind I had to change my beliefs. Now I am an agnostic when it comes to God, but I do defiantly believe that consciousness survives death.

I admit I don't have links to research papers to back me up, but I do know that research has been done. Especially by Pim Van Lommel a doctor in Holland. You can read about his research in his book called Consciousness beyond life

Evo, I will look at all your links, but I am tired right now, but I promise that I will.
 
  • #16
Forestman said:
an experience that feels realer than reality,

According to who? With reference to what?
with the person pocessing all of their emotions and cognitive functions.

Are they? Again according to who?
And their cognitive functions and emotions being increased.
As above.
Plus there are profound personality changes in people that have these experiences. Most of them become very altruistic. And not only from the good ones either. If a person is able to learn from a hellish one then they too are transformed for the better.

If I believed I'd seen hell - for what ever reason - I'm sure my personality would change too. No proof there.
And I am not just one of those people that believe because I want to believe. I am not religious or a new ager. I started out as an atheist, but when I looked at the evidence with an open mind I had to change my beliefs. Now I am an agnostic when it comes to God, but I do defiantly believe that consciousness survives death.

Again, I'm asking for this evidence you are talking about. Haven't seen any yet.
I admit I don't have links to research papers to back me up, but I do know that research has been done. Especially by Pim Van Lommel a doctor in Holland. You can read about his research in his book called Consciousness beyond life

Why books? Why would he do all that research and publish it in books but not papers - that should tell you all you need to know.

I'd point out that time within dreams does not match reality. I'm more inclined to believe that the person experiences a weird dream like state during the wake up or even pre-death event and that is what generates this occurrence - it doesn't have to happen during the actual death itself - it is only because we say it does that we assume it is during the death. A few seconds of this state in real time could be enough for minutes (if not more) in a dream state.

I had surgery about 10 years ago. You don't dream whilst you're out for an operation. However, I have an extremely vivid memory of just before I woke up - I was struggling violently against the doctors / nurses as if tied to the bed. It startled me at first but I was awake soon after it with no evidence of what had just happened.

I have two options - one is that it actually occurred and that I had passed out again just before waking slightly later or the other is that I simply imagined it in a dream like state. The key to this for me was the fact I could see clearly around the ward as I struggled- something strange seeing as the final act of the op was to bandage my left eye completely to allow it to heal.

Now I can completely understand how a person would see this as something paranormal, especially if the imagery was different (god, heaven, hell etc).

Besides, given the number of people who go through the NDE process each day, is it so surprising a few wake up and say they think someone close has died and it actually happens? Think of the whole "think of someone and they ring you" scenario.
 
  • #17
Evo, I just read the link about the brain storm, and while it is very convincing I still do not believe that it is the causes the the NDE, I say this because of the experience of Pam Reynolds. Pam Reynolds had a massive blood clot (I don't remember what the technical word was) in the base of her brain. And in oder to remove this clot she would have to be put to death literally. Her body was chilled down so that it would not decay, her heart was stopped from beating, and all the blood was drained from her head, causing her EEG to flatline. If I remember correctly she was in this state for an hour. During the surgery when she was technically dead her mind left her body and observed what was going on. She observed the special instruments that were being used, and she over heard conversations that were going on. All of this happened after any electrical brain activity could have taken place. Also during this experience she experienced going through a tunnel with a light at the end and meeting family members who had already died. After being brought back to life she had a very vivd memory of this experience. Also her recollection of the instruments and conversations were accurate. Which all took place while she was clinically dead.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Evo, I just read the page by Skeptical Inquirer.

I used to get Skeptical Inquirer myself, but after reading many of their articles it came apparent to me that they just pick on the cases that are easy to explain away, and ignore the ones with real evidence. I think of them as pseudo skeptics. While a real skeptic looks at all evidence, they on the other hand are more of debunkers. And debunkers already have their minds made up.

I have read about the debates going on over the Dutch studies in Pim Van Lommels book. I am also aware, but I can't back myself up because I don't remember what was said in the book, but Pim Van Lommel pointed out why much of the criticism of his work was wrong. I wish that I could say more in my defense on this one, but I can't.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
Forestman said:
Evo, I just read the link about the brain storm, and while it is very convincing I still do not believe that it is the causes the the NDE, I say this because of the experience of Pam Reynolds. Pam Reynolds had a massive blood clot (I don't remember what the technical word was) in the base of her brain. And in oder to remove this clot she would have to be put to death literally. Her body was chilled down so that it would not decay, her heart was stopped from beating, and all the blood was drained from her head, causing her EEG to flatline. If I remember correctly she was in this state for an hour. During the surgery when she was technically dead her mind left her body and observed what was going on. She observed the special instruments that were being used, and she over heard conversations that were going on. All of this happened after any electrical brain activity could have taken place. Also during this experience she experiences going through a tunnel with a light at the end and meeting family members who had already died. After being brought back to life she had a very vivd memory of this experience. Also her recollection of the instruments and conversations were accurate. Which all took place while she was clinically dead.
Actually, the hallucination could have happened as she was being prepared for surgery or as she was being brought out, there is no telling. She may have been "technically dead", but she was not really dead. We have the ability to revive people that are very near death, but we do not have the ability to bring people back from the dead. Scientists are not sure when the moment of complete irriversable death happens, they've found that it is a process, and cold delays that process.

I've had several operations where I came to during the operation, and could hear and see what was being said and done in the operating room. When having brain surgery, there was most likely a mirror or reflective object where she could have seen what was happening to herself. I know that when I've been wheeled into surgery, sometimes there were large reflective silver discs where I could see myself. But let's not consider practical explanations, let's jump to the supernatural.
 
  • #20
Forestman said:
Evo, I just read the page by Skeptical Inquirer.

I used to get Skeptical Inquirer myself, but after reading many of their articles it came apparent to me that they just pick on the cases that are easy to explain away, and ignore the ones with real evidence. I think of them as pseudo skeptics. While a real skeptic looks at all evidence, they on the other hand are more of debunkers. And debunkers already have their minds made up.

I have read about the debates going on over the Dutch studies in Pim Van Lommels book. I am also aware, but I can't back myself up because I don't remember what was said in the book, but Pim Van Lommel pointed out why much of the criticism of his work was wrong.

Again, I'd really like to see this "real evidence" because I can't find any.

I'd also like to restate my question to you regarding why these people are only in "buy me" books and not published papers?
Evo said:
Actually, the hallucination could have happened as she was being prepared for surgery or as she was being brought out, there is no telling.

My line of thinking precisely!
I've had several operations where I came to during the operation, and could hear and see what was being said and done in the operating room. When having brain surgery, there was most likely a mirror or reflective object where she could have seen what was happening to herself. I know that when I've been wheeled into surgery, sometimes there were large reflective silver discs where I could see myself. But let's not consider practical explanations, let's jump to the supernatural.

I'm glad I'm not alone in my experiences! Ok, slightly different but still all adds up to the same thing.
 
  • #21
What cannot be explained away is detailed memories of a conversation happening while not having observed brain activity, or knowledge of objects not in the line of sight of the patient. Are there any concrete research on this? The interesting thing to debunk is research verifying physically impossible feats such as this. Of course, anecdotal evidence is not of interest, as they are very prone to bias from the method of interrogation. E.g. asking "Do you remember us talking about [detail]?" would certainly not yield reliable results. As we all know our brain loves to forcibly insert memories of things that never happened if we are merely told they happened. Also, stories about heaven or hell from patients would certainly not verify that the memories were formed when the patient have no brain activity, as Evo points out.
 
  • #22
Forestman said:
I admit I don't have links to research papers to back me up, but I do know that research has been done. Especially by Pim Van Lommel a doctor in Holland. You can read about his research in his book called Consciousness beyond life
Here it is:
With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?22 Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope.29,30 Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience.31 NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation.

Another theory holds that NDE might be a changing state of consciousness (transcendence), in which identity, cognition, and emotion function independently from the unconscious body, but retain the possibility of non-sensory perception.7,8,22,28,31

Research should be concentrated on the effort to explain scientifically the occurrence and content of NDE. Research should be focused on certain specific elements of NDE, such as out-of-body experiences and other verifiable aspects. Finally, the theory and background of transcendence should be included as a part of an explanatory framework for these experiences.

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

It was published in The Lancet.
 
  • #23
This is reallly not that complex... the brain takes time to die, and that process is somewhat mysterious. If you actually DIE however, as in, no meaningful neurological activity... you're dead, no "Near death".

There is only evidence of the cascade of apoptosis, runaway cholinergics and more.

This is all difficult to explain only if you think the person was dead... they're not... a heart stopping may be lethal, but death occurs in the brain. You suffer brain death, you're dead, not "Near Dead", and there's no coming back AFAIK.

This is a ridiculous claim based on non-evidence in the face of MASSIVE contrary evidence... in my view, this is pure bunk and probably should have been report-worthy...even for S&D.

It's one thing to ask a question, it's another to just throw out a hunk of bull and then see how it plays out.
 
  • #24
nismaratwork said:
This is reallly not that complex... the brain takes time to die, and that process is somewhat mysterious. If you actually DIE however, as in, no meaningful neurological activity... you're dead, no "Near death".

There is only evidence of the cascade of apoptosis, runaway cholinergics and more.

This is all difficult to explain only if you think the person was dead... they're not... a heart stopping may be lethal, but death occurs in the brain. You suffer brain death, you're dead, not "Near Dead", and there's no coming back AFAIK.

This is a ridiculous claim based on non-evidence in the face of MASSIVE contrary evidence... in my view, this is pure bunk and probably should have been report-worthy...even for S&D.

It's one thing to ask a question, it's another to just throw out a hunk of bull and then see how it plays out.
Just a note: the idea that the brain creates consciousness (and that consciousness is limited to a functioning brain) is just an assumption, although a very common one. I do not know why people are so fully convinced of this. And there certainly isn't massive evidence for it.

Me? I am not convinced either way.
 
  • #25
pftest said:
Just a note: the idea that the brain creates consciousness is just an assumption, although a very common one. I do not know why people are so fully convinced of this. And there certainly isn't massive evidence for it.

Me? I am not convinced either way.

Are you saying that another part of my body, my feet perhaps, are responsible for it? Or are you trying to say there is something spiritual that causes it?
 
  • #26
pftest said:
Just a note: the idea that the brain creates consciousness (and that consciousness is limited to a functioning brain) is just an assumption, although a very common one. I do not know why people are so fully convinced of this. And there certainly isn't massive evidence for it.

Me? I am not convinced either way.

I'm sorry... it's an ASSUMPTION?! I'm going to ask you to back that up with a study, or SOMETHING, or retract. That's painfully laughable, as JnJ has pointed out, and if you're arguing for Dualism, that's a separate issue entirely.
 
  • #27
jarednjames said:
Are you saying that another part of my body, my feet perhaps, are responsible for it? Or are you trying to say there is something spiritual that causes it?
No, even if we look at it purely physically. I don't think "being responsible" is a physically meaningful term. For example: is the brain responsible for its atoms? Are the feet responsible for its atoms? These arent really meaningful questions. If we stick with a purely physical view on the body, then we have physical ingredients that change their position in space. Evo linked to an article earlier that mentioned that "a surge of electrical activity" may be the cause of NDE's. Yet physically, electrical activity simply goes somewhere else. How does this fit with the idea that consciousness goes nowhere and vanishes.
 
  • #28
nismaratwork said:
I'm sorry... it's an ASSUMPTION?! I'm going to ask you to back that up with a study, or SOMETHING, or retract. That's painfully laughable, as JnJ has pointed out, and if you're arguing for Dualism, that's a separate issue entirely.
The burden 'o proof. Show the evidence that consciousness is created by the brain (as opposed to merely interacting with it or influencing it). Also, there are many types of monism, and materialism is just one of them. The idea that abandoning materialism leads to dualism is therefor false.
 
  • #29
nismaratwork said:
I'm sorry... it's an ASSUMPTION?! I'm going to ask you to back that up with a study, or SOMETHING, or retract. That's painfully laughable, as JnJ has pointed out, and if you're arguing for Dualism, that's a separate issue entirely.

The idea is that the brain acts more as a transducer than a source. Parnia claims this notion is a logical consequence of his work. But this point is moot for our purposes. It would only be worthy of consideration if the basis for the speculaltion - the claim that thought can occur and memories can form whle there is no brain function - were validated.
 
  • #30
pftest said:
The burden 'o proof. Show the evidence that consciousness is created by the brain (as opposed to merely interacting with it or influencing it). Also, there are many types of monism, and materialism is just one of them. The idea that abandoning materialism leads to dualism is therefor false.

You really don't understand the concept of the burden of proof any better now than the last time you went down this road, and was stomped, do you? Do you truly not understand, in which case we can talk about it, or are you just trying (and failing) to be clever?
 
  • #31
Ivan Seeking said:
The idea is that the brain acts more as a transducer than a source. Parnia claims this notion is a logical consequence of his work. But this point is moot for our purposes. It would only be worthy of consideration if the basis for the speculaltion - the claim that thought can occur and memories can form whle there is no brain function - is validated.

I disagree... all I see is that in times where an EEG is no longer sensitive enough to be accurate, this occurs. The notion of memory formation without the involvement of the hippocampus and related structures is bordering on insane.
 
  • #32
pftest said:
Im actually looking at this entirely from a physical point of view. Physically speaking, "data" on RAM is not "represented", (except to a human interpreter), it simply consists of atoms (or their elementary particles) and the electrical activity. When the power is shut off, electricity leaves the computer, it doesn't vanish.

This discussion is not appropriate. Everyone, please drop it.

The focus should be whether real memories formed while there was no brain function. Has this claim been published in a reputable journal or not?
 
  • #33
Ivan Seeking said:
This discussion is not appropriate. Everyone, please drop it.

The focus should be whether real memories formed while there was no brain function. Has this claim been published in reputable journal or not?

The claim that memories can be formed when brain function is not detectable has been published, but it's a loner in a world of contradiction, its conclusions incredible in the face of such moderate evidence.
 
  • #34
nismaratwork said:
The claim that memories can be formed when brain function is not detectable has been published, but it's a loner in a world of contradiction, its conclusions incredible in the face of such moderate evidence.

Then you will need to provide papers refuting the published work. This isn't an opinions column.

Nor is it appropriate to speculate on theories of consciousness to explain the results. We need published papers here.
 
  • #35
ok i drop it
 
<h2>1. What is consciousness?</h2><p>Consciousness refers to the state of being aware of one's thoughts, feelings, and surroundings. It is often described as the subjective experience of being alive and having a sense of self.</p><h2>2. Is there scientific evidence that consciousness can survive death?</h2><p>There is currently no scientific evidence that consciousness can survive death. While some people believe in the concept of an afterlife, it is not a scientifically proven phenomenon.</p><h2>3. What is the BBC investigation about?</h2><p>The BBC investigation explores the possibility of consciousness surviving death through various perspectives, including scientific, religious, and philosophical viewpoints. It also examines the evidence and arguments for and against this idea.</p><h2>4. Can near-death experiences be considered as evidence for consciousness surviving death?</h2><p>Near-death experiences are often cited as evidence for consciousness surviving death. However, these experiences can be explained by physiological and psychological factors and do not provide conclusive evidence for an afterlife.</p><h2>5. What do scientists say about the survival of consciousness after death?</h2><p>Most scientists do not believe in the survival of consciousness after death. They argue that there is no scientific basis or evidence to support this idea and that it goes against our current understanding of the brain and consciousness.</p>

1. What is consciousness?

Consciousness refers to the state of being aware of one's thoughts, feelings, and surroundings. It is often described as the subjective experience of being alive and having a sense of self.

2. Is there scientific evidence that consciousness can survive death?

There is currently no scientific evidence that consciousness can survive death. While some people believe in the concept of an afterlife, it is not a scientifically proven phenomenon.

3. What is the BBC investigation about?

The BBC investigation explores the possibility of consciousness surviving death through various perspectives, including scientific, religious, and philosophical viewpoints. It also examines the evidence and arguments for and against this idea.

4. Can near-death experiences be considered as evidence for consciousness surviving death?

Near-death experiences are often cited as evidence for consciousness surviving death. However, these experiences can be explained by physiological and psychological factors and do not provide conclusive evidence for an afterlife.

5. What do scientists say about the survival of consciousness after death?

Most scientists do not believe in the survival of consciousness after death. They argue that there is no scientific basis or evidence to support this idea and that it goes against our current understanding of the brain and consciousness.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
495
Replies
5
Views
745
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
922
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
21
Views
5K
Replies
18
Views
5K
Back
Top