Review of NDE evidence: Mays excerpt #18

Robert G. Mays

The Mays write: We first presented the evidence from NDEs that (1) the human being consists of a nonmaterial “mind” and a physical body. (2) Although the mind is intimately integrated with the body, it is an independent, objectively real aspect of the person that can separate from the body during an NDE. (3) All of the person’s cognitive faculties reside in the mind, not in the brain. However, while in the “in-body” state, the mind is dependent on brain activity for normal cognitive activity. And (4) the nonmaterial mind interacts with the brain to produce conscious awareness. The mind’s interactions with the brain involve a point of contact and a two-way force of interaction between the mind and the brain.

In Section 2, we presented strong evidence (a) that the NDEr’s experiences in the physical realm are real; (b) that the NDEr’s mind or consciousness separates from the body during the NDE; and (c) that the mind operates independent of the body.

In Section 3, we presented strong evidence (a) that the NDEr’s mind acts as a cohesive unit and (b) carries the essence of the person. (c) The NDEr is the same person when out-of-body as within their physical body. (d) The NDEr realizes that their out-of-body mind is significantly expanded and enhanced than when in the physical body and that their physical body is not their real self.

In Section 4, we presented strong evidence (a) that the mind entity itself is objectively real; and (b) that the NDEr’s out-of-body mind is objectively present to others. Therefore, (c) the NDEr’s mind entity itself is an objectively real thing, a real being. The separate mind entity really exists.

In Section 5, we presented the mind entity hypothesis: (a) the human being consists of a nonmaterial “mind” that is spatially coextensive and intimately integrated with the physical body. (b) There are two states of consciousness: an “in-body” state, whereby the mind is dependent on brain activity for normal cognitive functions, and an “out-of-body” state whereby the mind is separated and can function completely independent of the brain and body. Given the evidence in Sections 2–4, (c) the mind entity hypothesis is a plausible picture of the human being.

In Section 6, we presented the evidence (a) that the nonmaterial mind is able to interact with physical processes; (b) that a subtle, previously unrecognized two-way interactive force is involved in mind-to-matter interactions; and (c) that the mind can interact specifically with neural electrical processes—both to sense and to trigger neural electrical activity. Finally, we presented (d) a plausible mechanism for two-way causal interactions between the nonmaterial mind and the brain.

In Section 7, we presented responses to the philosophical challenges to our interactionist dualist mind entity theory, showing (a) that the nonmaterial mind is in the same category as physical objects; (b) that the mind entity theory addresses the “causal pairing problem” and (c) satisfies the “causal closure of the physical.”

In Section 8, we presented other explanations that scientists have proposed to explain NDEs and show that they fail. (a) To be acceptable, neurological, physiological, or psychological interpretations should be able to provide a comprehensive explanation of all the various aspects of the core experience. (b) Explanations that rely on ad hoc hypotheses to explain NDEs ultimately are unscientific because they fail to account for multiple cases in a single coherent framework. (c) There is strong evidence that there must be some unifying factor which comes to bear in all NDEs—whether in life-threatening situations or not—that is, some immediate or proximate cause that applies in all NDEs. (d) Therefore, other explanations fail because they don’t address all situations in which NDEs arise.

Thus, the convergence of strong NDE evidence presented up to this point supports the fact—beyond any reasonable doubt—that the mind of a person can separate from the physical body and operate independent of it. There is a plausible mechanism for two-way causal interactions between the nonmaterial mind and the brain which successfully answers the philosophical challenges to interactionist dualism. Other explanations of NDEs that have been proposed—for example that NDEs are caused by various physiological or neurological processes—fail, because they do not apply to all NDEs and do not provide a comprehensive explanation of all the various aspects of the core experience.

However, skeptics can still argue that NDErs may have been near to death but they did not actually die, so NDEs do not provide credible evidence of survival of physical death. 

Robert G. Mays, BSc and Suzanne B. Mays, AA,  “There is no death: Near-death experience evidence for survival after permanent bodily death.” An essay written for the 2021 Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies addressing the question: “What Is The Best Available Evidence For The Survival Of Human Consciousness After Permanent Bodily Death?” Footnotes are omitted from these excerpts but are in the full text available from the Bigelow website at https://bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php.