What's it like to be dead?

... and if it is going to be soon, well, no point worrying then either, we'll find out soon enough ;)

Funny thing is, though it's in the title of this thread, and we do talk about topics such as NDEs a lot here, my main preoccupation has always been about how and why to live right here and now in this life. It was only through a lack of satisfactory answers to that question, about the here and now, that I found myself on the trail leading to these topics including death.

Things in my life are much more placid these days, but as a young man, I could scarcely get out of bed in the morning without knowing the reason why. For me, that was the big question, not about the nature of death, but simply trying to get some sort of grasp on the nature of life. That the two questions seem to lead to the same ideas is in itself revealing.

"Things in my life are much more placid these days, but as a young man, I could scarcely get out of bed in the morning without knowing the reason why"

Me too, Typoz. And I don't want to give anyone the impression that I think life here is not important, it is and we have to stick at it for whatever part we are playing in this lovely/ghastly pantomime.
 
The "largely untransformed me beyond death" narrative can only be found at the most unsophisticated level of religious doctrines such as Christian catechism and their equivalent in Islam etc... where we're supposed to leave the physical realm as souls and move to the pearly gates, maintaining all our human psychology and character intact, solidified at the time of death.

This sort of ingenuous picture disappears as soon you scratch the surface, even in the strict doctrine of Christian theology.

If you have ever read anything from the esoteric literature such as Gnosticism, esoteric Buddhism, Kabbala, Theosophy, Anthroposophy etc... you will find very sophisticated descriptions of how consciousness evolves into further level of experience. The interesting aspect of these "philosophies" is that they balance the empirical, rational and experiential side of the human journey, not just the onanistic trips of the logical ego-mind.

cheers

Well one can generate endless "notional" cosmologies. It depends on whether you think that is a productive activity. The question to me is always, what is this other alleged consciousness supposedly doing or achieving...what difference is it making to the ecology of reality? If that question, in effect, can't be answered, then its plausibility is reduced by at least a couple of F stops, imo.

I'm not against speculation. But at the end of the day, I think they have to attach to things.
 
I can't imagine reality itself. Why does anything exist in the first place? Why is there something rather than nothing at all? This to me, goes far beyond imagining the possibility that identity might continue in some fashion. Reality itself - is unimaginable.

My Best,
Bertha

But it doesn't follow from the fact that some things exist, therefore that everything we can imagine exists. There's only one world that we know of that can be securely said to independently exist, and that's the one we're occupying.
 
Kai,
Please advise the standards you are applying, with the appropriate units of measure and ranges of expected data. ie clinical is defined and the term biological is a generalized word, which in science is defined by clinical standards

1) If a living system at any level of hierarchy is capable of recovery, then it is not biologically dead. We could call this level one, or the shallowest level, on the path of approach to actual death.
2) If said system is incapable of recovery yet still processing metabolically, even if in a restricted way, then it is past an irreversible "break." Death is inevitable but has not yet occurred.
3) If said system is incapable of recovery even of its metabolic activity, then it is biologically dead.

All "experiences" are from level 1.
 
I understand what you are saying, and if we strictly define "death" as someone who never returns from what is considered a "clinical death" then I agree with you. Note that NDE actually is Near Death Experience: so really, it can be argued that NDE's really are not about actual death but near death events.

I do recommend the Shared Death book by Moody if you're interested. The book is called "Glimpses of Eternity", and was co-authored with Paul Perry. Published 2010. It is not as scientific as other work in NDEs (such as Sabom or Van Lommel) but it has some of the same ground breaking ideas similar to what Moody brought forth in his first bestseller, Life after Life.

I guess what I'm trying to get at however, is that those who have an NDE and those who actually die, for all we know right now, may have identical experiences that represent the passage of dying and death - with the very last step, not being taken by the NDE'rs. Given what are the very well known common experiences of NDEs, such as conscious awareness outside of the body, relief of all pain and often overwhelming feelings of love and peace, sometimes a passage through a tunnel and bright light, sometimes a panoramic life review, often meeting with loved ones or family, and then very often: a critical point where the NDEr is told it is not their time, that they must go back and finish their life, all do seem indicative of a kind of dying process, or passage of death that lies within a realm of psychological consciousness independent of brain activity - of which scientists can only conjecture about at this time. Is consciousness some kind of quantum reality that is a priori to physical reality, much like electrons exist in a schrodinger's universal quantum wave function coming into actual existence upon observation? What are the rules of this process? There is still a lot of scientific unknowns here, waiting to be explored/studied.

It is very clear from three decades now of NDE research, that NDE experiences do and have often occurred when the body itself and most importantly the brain is considered clinically inactive or in medical terminology, clinically dead. The heart is no longer providing blood flow to the brain. All EEG activity of the brain has ceased. The patient is profoundly unconscious if not actually biologically dead. Given all the medical science we know today, there should be absolutely no possible way a person experiencing an NDE should have any kind of complex, vivid, organized psychological experiences occurring the way NDEs have been reported, and even more astonishing, reported consistently from accounts around the world from people who have never met each other, many of whom were very young children, similar in detail and scope. In addition there is the attribute of veridical knowledge that some NDE accounts provide that one would have to resort to some extremely unreasonable explanations to dismiss (which Skeptics regularly resort to).

My Best,
Bertha

I have just downloaded the above mentioned books of Moody and more , thanks for the tip, buddy .
NDE are puzzling indeed and no psychological or physiological explanations away of NDE can deny their veracity as such .
Nevertheless , i don't think NDE have anything to do with the irreversible process of death as such .
NDE might be the result of higher level of consciousness (Consciousness expanded ), thanks to the absence or reduced capacity of the brain as a filter of consciousness , almost in the same fashion psychedelics do expand consciousness by inhibiting the filtering or limiting capacity of the brain, i don't know .

I think that those experiences should be labeled otherwise also , instead of being labeled as NDE , simply because they have nothing to do with the irreversible process of death that is not really a pleasant "thing" to undergo .

Almost all ancient wisdom says that the real death process is not really pleasant as NDE'rs say it is : it is an extremely painful process , i am afraid : the immortal soul has to get removed from every atom, molecule , cell , organ .... of the dying body : that's no pick nick , i guess .
Cheers.
 
Last edited:
When the immortal immaterial soul leaves the body ...during the irreversible process of death , it's no pick nick ,unlike what NDE say on the subject thus .
I presume that NDE are forms of higher levels of consciousness though during which the limiting or filtering capacity of the human brain in relation to consciousness gets either reduced to the minimum or is totally absent , i guess.
 
Also matters the definition of clinical death, so Bucky wrote:

Clinical death is sourced in a human judgment,which can simply be changed to suit our definitions.

Biological death is sourced in objectives of nature not being able to retreat along its process path back into life.
 
Theorizism that avoids examining the empirical evidence.

When you show me empirical evidence, that is in any sense actually empirical and not a hive of stories, I will have an ear prepared to treat your claim seriously.
 
You're a pain. Do you know why? Because you get to speculate giving back to the evidence, so your speculations have no basis; no one has argued that after death the self is "untransformed", but the self changes but remains the same.

The self changes but remains the same? What does that even mean? In any case, it's to do with our world and the embedding of what we are inextricably in our genes, evolutionary history and hormones.We could not even be "human" without these things. It's a ridiculous scenario, frankly.
 
Dying machines, of any type, simply descend into a chaotic/uncontrolled behavior before shutting down entirely. Try reducing the power supply of your computer to 5% while it is running, watch it crash, and see if when you turn it on again it has generated beautiful images and poetry files on your desktop...

Interesting example, because in fact it wouldn't *really* be hard to achieve this. It just needs an "emergency system" to kick in, with its own temporary back ups etc. We've been producing machines for only hundreds of years. Nature has been producing organisms for billions. What on *earth* would make you think they cannot have any special processes reserved for survival-threatening situations.
 
No, because memories, motivations, etc. are preserved, although acquire new things like 360 degree vision, etc. Anyway I do not care another useless discursion.

One cannot talk about "preservation" in phenomena derived from brains that haven't perished yet. But I agree, the argument is useless. You are unable to perceive this problem, and don't understand it.
 
360 degree vision, extracorporeal experiences, all that and more things make me think that NDEs can not be an emergency system to address threats.

Aside from the questionable rendering of these categories, I don't think is related to whether or not the brain has emergency processes.
Are you telling me, too, that you can't imagine the world in 360 degrees? Sorry to hear that.
 
You're the one who is unable to see your flaws: cases of apparitions: brains already descomposing; mediumship: living brains, but some cases allow us to infer the present of minds of deceased; cases of NDEs: idem ...

Sorry, what brains were already "decomposing" when they reported experiences?
 
No, but I meant the brains of those who appear. And there are good reasons for excluding that some apparitions are hallucinations, but anyway ..

I'm betting that your "good reasons" are simply more stories that you personally find plausible.
Meanwhile, of course, the brains of all so-called mediums are 100% living.
 
No, they do not, because they do not favor the recovery of the organism as specific and widespread traits.

Why would meaning not favor the recovery of the organism? I think it is one of the most powerful life-orienting factors.
 
Back
Top