Implications for neuroscience: Mays excerpt #26

The Mays write: To adopt the new paradigm of the nonmaterial self-conscious mind, current neuroscience must be reformulated and extended, for example, in the following ways:

Neural activations are currently considered calculations on neural representations of mental content encoded in neural structures.

In contrast, in our theory, all mental processing occurs in the nonmaterial mind. There are no neural representations of mental content. The mental content in the mind is impressed on a brain region; the neural activations in that region bring the content to awareness. The reciprocal interplay of the mind with the brain produces in-body consciousness.

Both episodic and semantic memories are currently considered to be encoded as neural representations in the brain, in the hippocampus or globally in the cortex, respectively.

In contrast, in our theory, all memories are formed and “stored” in the mind and are accessible by impressing specific remembered content, through intuition, on the appropriate brain region, for example, a specific life event or the meaning of a word. The reciprocal interplay of the mind with the brain brings the memory to consciousness.

The “mind” is currently considered to be a set of cognitive and emotional capacities produced by brain activity. The mind is impaired when the brain is impaired. With severe brain damage, the mind is reduced to primitive “unresponsive wakefulness” or “vegetative” states. The mind—the person—is annihilated with the death of the brain.

In contrast, in our theory, the nonmaterial self-conscious mind is ordinarily dependent on brain activity and is impaired when the brain is impaired. With severe brain damage, the mind is still whole but is locked in a severely dysfunctional brain. Therapies can be developed to improve brain function so the mind can begin to work with the brain again and the patient can become more responsive. With the death of the brain, the mind—the essence of the person—is released from the body and continues to exist as the whole person.

Implications for physics

To adopt the new paradigm of the nonmaterial self-conscious mind, current physics must be reformulated and extended to account for the following new phenomenological facts:

An extra spatial dimension: As described above, NDErs frequently report unusual visual abilities— “360° spherical vision” and “vision from everywhere.” Several NDE researchers have proposed that this exceptional ability suggests there is an additional spatial dimension. Because NDEr veridical perceptions occur “simultaneously in all directions,” the 5th dimension must encompass the other dimensions (three of space and one of time). The nature of this 5th dimension has relevance to physicists who are considering an extra spatial dimension to explain the weakness of gravity relative to the other fundamental forces.

A new physical force between the out-of-body nonmaterial mind entity and solid physical objects: This force accounts for the subtle interaction NDErs experience when moving through solid matter, generally described as a resistance or increase in density. This force is likely a universal force between out-of-body entities existing in the 5th dimension and matter, for example, accounting for the rare cases of physical interaction between a deceased loved one and an in-body person. This new force may also be involved in apparent cases of psychokinesis (PK), the paranormal ability to influence a physical system without using ordinary physical interaction.

A new type of entity (spiritual beings): The evidence from NDEs strongly suggest that the NDEr’s nonmaterial mind or consciousness separates from and operates independent of the body; that the mind is the essence of the person; and that the mind entity is objectively real. The evidence of meeting deceased persons in NDEs, in shared death experiences (SDEs), and in after-death communications (ADCs) demonstrates that the deceased persons these experiencers encounter are objectively real. The phenomenological facts indicate that the minds of living and deceased persons are nonmaterial spiritual beings who continue to exist after the death of the physical body. Therefore, a complete scientific description of physical reality needs to include the existence of these entities because every living human being is the embodiment of a spiritual being in a physical body.

The insights derived from NDEs, SDEs, and related phenomena lead to a theory of mind that has greater explanatory power with respect to consciousness, memory, and agency. As we have hopefully demonstrated above, the insights from this theory provide a new conceptual framework that can lead to paradigm shifts in neuroscience, physics, and other fields, thereby extending the current naturalism to include nonmaterial entities, forces, and interactions.

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.

Explanatory power of evidence: Mays excerpt #25

The Mays write: The credibility of any theory or explanation of the survival of consciousness after physical death must include a presentation of how the theory fits in with other areas of science, philosophy, and human knowledge. How powerful is the theory in explaining other problems or conundrums in science and philosophy? What are the implications of the theory for other areas of science and for the whole of humanity?

A central tenet of the mind entity theory is that the essence of the human being is an autonomous nonmaterial conscious entity, a spiritual being, united with a physical body. This tenet is a radical departure from explanations of consciousness proposed by materialist scientists and philosophers—who are stuck on the “hard problem” of explaining subjective phenomenal experience. This tenet is also at odds with explanations of consciousness proposed by NDE theorists—as some form of “nonlocal,” “infinite,” or “cosmic” consciousness where the self loses its individual identity.

Nearly all scientists and philosophers have dismissed interactionist dualism out of hand because, they conclude, it is literally impossible to explain how nonmaterial entities can causally interact with the physical world.

We believe our mind entity theory answers these challenges with a plausible explanation and specific neurological mechanisms. We are confident that this theory can successfully be tested and confirmed and can provide more comprehensive and coherent neurological explanations of conscious experience than current neuroscience can do.

The mind entity theory, based on the existence of a nonmaterial conscious entity united with the brain, explains a number of problems in philosophy and neuroscience.

1. The hard problem of consciousness. How does neural activity in brain neurons turn into subjective phenomenal experience, for example, the vivid experience of the color red? In our view, the mind is the seat of consciousness, the seat of subjective experience. The mind is the subject in which phenomenal experience occurs. When one is in-body, all conscious experience occurs via brain electrical activity, that is, through the interaction of neural activity with the mind. Because human beings are conscious entities, sufficient neural activity in the brain naturally comes to awareness as subjective experience. There is no “hard problem” of consciousness because conscious awareness is the inherent property of minds.

2. The problem of encoding semantic memory. Semantic memories—of facts, word meanings, faces, etc.—are evidently “encoded” throughout the cortex. How do neural circuits across the cortex provide a mechanism for encoding and recalling semantic memories? In our view, when we learn a new word, the semantic memory is formed in the mind. When we read the word again, its meaning is recalled from the mind and activates a specific pattern of neural activity to bring the word’s concept to awareness. There is no semantic encoding in the neurons.

3. The problems of agency and free will. How does one have the sense of self-awareness and know that one is the agent of one’s own actions, feelings, and thoughts? Are our choices completely determined or are we free to choose among different courses of action? In our view, the sense of agency is one’s sense of being an autonomous mind entity. When I decide to move, my thought activates neural activity in my brain. I become aware of my decision and my body moves. As a self-aware mind entity, I know that I am the agent of my actions, feelings, and thoughts. I can choose freely and my intentions are fulfilled. Free will exists; I can’t always control the circumstances of my life but I can control how I respond to those circumstances.

4. The problem of inhalational anesthetics. How do biochemically inert anesthetics, like ether, work to suppress conscious awareness? In our proposed mechanism for mind-to-brain interaction, the mind alters neural “ion channels” to trigger electrical activity which enables one’s mental content to come to awareness. The presence of substances like ether in the brain temporarily blocks these ion channels so that the mind can no longer trigger electrical activity. One’s normal brain activity is suppressed and mental content can’t come to awareness. 

 

 

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.

Summary of evidence: Mays excerpt #24

The Mays write: The focus of the evidence we have presented has been near-death experiences (NDEs), the experiences of human beings who have been close to death and experienced the first stages of the dying process. We then included the related experiences of those who have witnessed the dying process in shared death experiences (SDEs) and of those who have witnessed communications from deceased loved ones in after-death communications (ADCs). Thus, we have covered the full spectrum of human experience relating to the separation of the mind from the body, the process of dying, physical death, and survival after physical death.

Roughly 400 million people worldwide have experienced an NDE. Millions more people have experienced an SDE or an ADC. When the same experience is considered collectively across millions of people, it can be regarded as a common, objective reality.

The evidence that we presented in these phenomena is both (a) veridical, that is, based on credible accurate, verified observations or information, and (b) objective, that is, based on corroboration by credible independent witnesses. Therefore, the facts we have derived in our key lines of evidence are credible, real, and objective.

In addition, we included sections to address skeptical arguments or alternative explanations for these phenomena (a) to present a plausible model and mechanism that explains how these phenomena can occur, and (b) to show how various philosophical counterarguments and alternative explanations fail.

All this evidence must be considered as a whole. Together, it forms a complete coherent picture. The ten key lines of evidence

1. A person’s mind or consciousness can separate from and operate independent of the physical body. We presented strong evidence that in many NDEs, the NDEr reports accurate, verified perceptions of the physical realm beyond the reach of the physical senses or while the brain was incapacitated, demonstrating that the NDEr’s mind or consciousness has somehow separated from and operates independent of the body.

2. The separate mind embodies all of the person’s cognitive functions; it is the essence of the person. We presented strong evidence that the NDEr’s mind acts as a cohesive unit, embodying all cognitive faculties, and carrying the essence of the person. The NDEr realizes that their physical body is not their real self.

3. The separate mind itself is an objectively real thing, a real being. We presented strong evidence that the mind entity itself is objectively real—the mind entity can be seen by other people, by animals, and by other NDErs. The separate mind entity objectively exists.

4. The mind entity hypothesis is a plausible picture of the human being. We presented the mind entity hypothesis. We proposed that the human being consists of a nonmaterial “mind” integrated with the physical body. The mind ordinarily interacts and works with the brain to support consciousness, but can separate from and function independent of the brain. The mind entity hypothesis is plausible given the evidence in the previous items 1–3.

5. There is a plausible mechanism for two-way causal interactions between the nonmaterial mind and the brain. We proposed a mechanism for causal interactions between the mind and the brain based on (a) NDEr reports of an interactive force of resistance when the NDEr moves through solid matter, and (b) NDEr reports of interactions with another person’s physical body that appear to enable both the sensing and triggering of neural activity.

6. The mind entity theory addresses the main philosophical objections to dualism. In the mind entity theory, the mind merges with the physical brain and exerts direct causal interaction with it at specific points of contact, thus addressing the “causal pairing problem” and the “causal closure of the physical.”

7. Various psychological and physiological explanations for NDEs fail. Unlike the mind entity theory, various alternative explanations fail because they do not give a comprehensive explanation of all aspects of all NDEs. Some explanations apply ad hoc hypotheses to address specific aspects of specific cases but fail when applied as a general coherent explanation of NDEs. In addition, many NDEs occur in non-life-threatening circumstances, in healthy individuals, indicating that there must be some unifying factor, that is, some immediate cause that applies in all NDEs, rather than a specific psychological or physiological precipitating factor. We proposed the common immediate cause of NDEs is in fact the separation of the mind entity from the physical body.

8. Encounters with deceased persons during an NDE indicate that the mind of the deceased person continues after physical death. In these cases, the deceased person communicated accurate veridical information that the NDEr could not have obtained by any other means, which provides strong evidence that the encounters were real encounters with real human beings who once lived on Earth. Veridical communications with someone who has already died is evidence implicitly for personal survival of physical death.

9. Shared death experiences (SDEs) are strong objective evidence that the deceased person’s conscious Self continues to exist after physical death. In some SDE cases, the experiencer (SDEr) witnesses the process the dying person goes through in making the transition out-of-body, which has elements similar to NDEs. The SDEr can later verify the details seen in the dying person’s life review. Two or more SDErs in attendance at the person’s death may observe and corroborate the same SDE events, so the events are objective facts. The SDEr observes that the process of dying is identical to the process in an NDE, except that the dying person’s mind does not return to the physical body but continues to exist after physical death in a different realm.

10. After-death communications (ADCs) also provide strong objective evidence that the deceased person continues to exist after physical death. In ADCs, a deceased loved one communicates with the “witness” who may sense the presence of and hear the loved one, or directly see and converse with them. The loved one frequently appears completely solid, in their full form, and the encounter seems more real than everyday reality, including in some cases physical interactions. The loved one may provide veridical information which is later confirmed to be accurate. Shared ADCs, that is, encounters in which two or more people together witness the loved one, provide objective corroboration of the event. Thus, ADCs provide strong objective evidence that the deceased person continues to exist after physical death.

The evidence from near-death experiences (NDEs) demonstrates that the essential, nonmaterial aspect of a human being (the person’s mind entity) separates from the physical body in an NDE and operates independent of the brain and physical body

The evidence from shared death experiences (SDEs) demonstrates that in the process of physical death, as witnessed by SDErs, the dying person’s mind entity separates from the physical body and transitions to a different realm.

The evidence of meeting deceased persons in NDEs, SDEs, and in after-death communications (ADCs) demonstrates that the deceased persons are objectively real because they are observed at times simultaneously by multiple witnesses and at times provide veridical information previously unknown to the witness. Credible veridical communication with someone who has already died is evidence implicitly for personal survival of physical death.

Conclusion: Based on the evidence from these phenomena, taken as a whole, a person’s essential Self or mind at death separates from the physical body, transitions to a different realm, and survives the death of the physical body.  

 

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.

Mind of deceased exists: Mays excerpt #23

The Mays write: ADCs provide strong evidence indicating not only the survival of death of the individual but also a persistence of that person’s personality, memory, and relationships with those still living. As with NDErs meeting deceased loved ones, ADCs indicate that the deceased person’s consciousness, personality, and identity continue on after death. Shared ADCs, that is, encounters in which two or more people witness the deceased person, provide objective corroboration of the event and cannot be attributed to imagination or wishful thinking.

In Part 2 of this essay, in Sections 10–12, we presented the evidence of encounters with deceased loved ones and friends from NDEs and other death-related phenomena.

In Section 10, we presented evidence from encounters with a deceased person during an NDE who communicated accurate veridical information. The person may be a deceased person known to the NDEr but not known to have died or a deceased person not known to the NDEr but later identified. Veridical communication with someone who has already died is evidence implicitly for personal survival of physical death. These cases are strong objective evidence of contact with those who have died and that the minds of deceased persons continue after physical death.

In Section 11, we described the phenomenon of shared death experiences (SDEs) in which a healthy, awake person observes the dying person’s spirit body separate from the physical body or may be drawn out-of-body with the deceased person’s spirit body and observe details of the dying process. Therefore, SDErs are objective eyewitnesses to the process of dying. The process of dying is identical to the process in an NDE, except that the dying person does not return to the physical body but continues to exist after physical death. Thus, SDEs are strong objective evidence that the deceased person’s conscious Self survives physical death.

In Section 12, we described the phenomenon of spontaneous after-death communications (ADCs) which is the experience of direct communication from a deceased family member or friend with a healthy, living person. The deceased person frequently appears completely solid, in their full form and the encounter seems more real than everyday reality. The encounter may include physical interactions, such as hugging between the witness and the deceased person. The deceased person may provide veridical information which is later verified to be accurate. Shared ADCs, that is, encounters in which two or more people together witness the deceased person provide objective corroboration of the event. Therefore, ADCs provide strong objective evidence that the deceased person continues to exist after physical death.

Thus, in Part 2, we have presented strong, convincing evidence from encounters with dying or deceased persons in NDEs, SDEs, and ADCs, that the deceased person’s mind or consciousness continues to exist after physical death. The convergence of strong evidence from these experiences supports the fact—beyond a reasonable doubt—that the mind of a deceased person continues to exist after 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.

After-death communication: Mays excerpt #22

The Mays write: Skeptics can still argue that despite the veridical information received by the SDEr and the corroboration from multiple SDEr witnesses, the evidence from SDEs of the transition of the dying person is still from a subjective experience. Is there any objective evidence that the dying person actually continues to exist or do they just disappear or merge into nothingness after their physical death?

After-death communication (ADC) is the experience of spontaneous direct communication from a deceased family member or friend with a living person. In spontaneous cases, the deceased loved one always initiates the communication.

The communication may be by sensing a presence, hearing a voice, feeling a touch, smelling a fragrance, or seeing the deceased person in partial or full appearance. The deceased person may appear completely solid or somewhat hazy, and is usually wearing their customary clothing.

ADCs are commonplace and occur in normal, healthy people. The communication may occur while the witness is completely awake, while asleep, or while falling asleep or waking up. Even during sleep, the witness experiences the encounter as more real than everyday reality.

The deceased person may provide veridical information about a lost insurance policy or hidden valuables. They may warn the witness to avoid an airplane crash. In other cases, the deceased person is not known to the witness but is later revealed to be a relative.

ADCs generally start within one year of the deceased person’s death but may occur many years later. They occur to both the bereaved and the non-bereaved. The witness may continue to sense the deceased person’s presence throughout their life.

Researchers estimate that one-third of the worldwide population has had one or more ADCs. ADCs provide objective evidence that the deceased person continues to exist after physical death.

Reports Lucille's case

Lucille was a 39-year-old hotel housekeeper in Florida. She had been adopted after birth. Her birth name was Mary but her adoptive parents had changed it to Lucille.

“A man came to the foot of my bed one night. I was scared because I didn’t recognize him. He said, ‘Mary, your mother loves you. ... Your mother is looking for you. Start looking for her. Find your mother! I love you.’ I remember asking him who he was just before I couldn’t see him anymore. And he said, ‘You’ll find out.’ The next thing I knew, he was gone. I was still scared, yet I had tears of happiness. I was glad to know that my birth mother was looking for me. This gave me the incentive to find my biological mother. I was always dreaming about finding her, but I didn’t want to hurt my adoptive parents. Then I went to a club for adoptees, and I found my mother with just one phone call! She asked, ‘How did you find me?’ I told her an elderly man came to the foot of my bed. I described what he looked like, and she said, ‘That’s your grandfather!’ I learned when Grandpa was dying, he told my mother, ‘Find your daughter. Find your baby.’ He wanted to rest in peace knowing we would be together again. ... When we met [the next day], [my mother] showed me a picture of my grandfather, and that was the man who had been standing at the foot of my bed. Grandpa had the same suit on in the photograph that he wore when he came to me. Then I knew my experience was real!”

In this case, Lucille sees an unknown deceased man who gives her a message about her birth mother, addressing her with her birth name. Lucille confirms that the person she saw was her deceased biological grandfather from the photograph of him her mother showed her. This case is similar to the NDEr seeing an unknown deceased man and later finding out he was his biological father. Lucille’s perception of her deceased grandfather was accurate, that is, veridical. The information her father told her, that her mother was looking for her, was also veridical.

In another example, the deceased person can be seen by two or more people independently and their individual accounts corroborate each other.

Blair was a business executive, age 45. Her father had died from a series of strokes. She and her five-year-old son were together in a hotel room the night before the funeral. Blair was sitting in a chair and her son was in bed. As she was praying for her father:

“The lights in the room seemed to grow dim, and all of a sudden, there was my father! He seemed very, very solid. Though he was in his eighties when he died, now he appeared to be more like a man in his sixties. ... He stood there and told me, ‘Be strong and take care of your mother. Remember, I love you. Good-bye.’ Dad’s facial expression softened considerably when he said, ‘Remember, I love you.’ It lasted only a few seconds, and then he left. My little boy, who was in bed, got up. I thought he had been asleep. He ran to me and said, ‘My granddaddy! My granddaddy!’ I said, ‘Your granddaddy is gone.’ And he said, ‘No! My granddaddy was right here!’ So my son saw him too!”

In this case, the agreement of two living people simultaneously witnessing the same ADC event provides objective corroboration of the event. To Blair, her father seemed “very, very solid” rather than ethereal and about 20 years younger. It is not unusual for the deceased person in an NDE, SDE or ADC to appear younger than they looked at the time of their death.

In another example, a deceased son was seen and touched by his father who was fully awake; there was an energetic interaction between father and son.

Twenty-five-year-old Eric Zimmerman was killed in an automobile accident and appeared to his father, Fred, forty-five days later. That morning, Fred had been up for half-an-hour and was stepping toward the bathroom.

“I felt a tremendous squeeze and hug on both sides of my body that stopped me in my tracks. Eric appeared right in front of my face, smiling, and the whole room was full of energy. It’s like the molecules, atoms, and air are all moving at a tremendous speed. It was forceful, explosive, loving, highly energized— the most exhilarating experience that I have ever had! I hugged Eric. I was hugging an energy force, not a real physical body. I kissed him on his right cheek and felt his beard/whiskers on my lips. He was moving so fast ... as though he was flying through the house.

“My mind was ecstatic, lucid, fully awake and aware of what was happening. I could see the tremendous love in the complete environment that Eric brought with him. I knew this was real, on purpose, planned by Eric as I could never have written or wished the events in this spontaneous experience. The force field, aura, and energy surrounding Eric was so strong and charged that it pushed me back onto the bed. ... As I had my arms around Eric, his image and I were falling toward the bed. He told me telepathically, ‘I love you Dad. I love you Mom.’ ... As we fell, he rolled over the top of me and I could see his whole body.”

In this case, Fred was fully awake and lucid. The entire encounter lasted only about ten seconds. Eric’s presence was instantly evident through Eric’s face and the touch of his beard, through the power of his personality, through the wrestling with his dad onto the bed, and through his message to his parents, “I love you Dad. I love you Mom.” The entire atmosphere was suffused with his love for them.

Fred’s interaction with his son included an energetic force that was strong enough to hold Fred and to push him physically backwards onto the bed. Eric’s “body” was not material but an “energy force” that Fred could touch, kiss and hug. Fred could feel the whiskers on Eric’s face.

This ADC encounter provides additional evidence suggesting that the nonmaterial mind entity can exert a measurable force on physical matter. 

 

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.

Shared death evidence: Mays excerpt #21

The Mays write: In shared death experiences (SDEs), the SDEr is healthy and awake. They may observe the dying person separate from the physical body at the time of death. Alternatively, they may themselves be drawn out-of-body with the deceased person’s spirit body. The SDEr may observe the life review of the deceased person, similar to the life review in NDEs. The SDEr may observe deceased relatives or friends come to welcome and escort the deceased person to a different realm.

The SDErs are healthy, credible eyewitnesses of the objective facts they observe. If more than one person is present with the dying person, their individual accounts frequently corroborate each other. For example:

Scott Taylor’s shared death experience: In 1981, Scott Taylor’s girlfriend Mary Frances and her seven- year-old son Nolan were involved in a horrific car accident. Mary Fran was killed outright and her son survived for an additional six days with a severe head wound. At the time of Nolan’s transition, Scott and a number of Mary Fran’s family were in the hospital room. Scott witnessed Mary Fran come “across the veil,” approach Nolan, scoop him up out of his physical body, and hold him in a loving embrace. To his surprise, the two of them turned to Scott, embraced him and the three of them “went to the light.” About 10 years later, Scott spoke with another family member who had the exact same experience at the time of Nolan’s death: When Nolan flatlined, she witnessed Mary Fran come “across the veil” and scoop Nolan up out of his physical body. They embraced and she got to be part of that embrace. At some point they turned to her and the three of them “went to the light.” She used the exact same words that Scott used to describe his experience.

The SDEr observes the dying person’s transition to actual death in three ways: (1) Many of the elements observed by SDErs are identical with NDE elements but are observed from a third-person perspective. (2) We can infer from the SDEr’s descriptions many of the things the dying person experiences. These are the same phenomena as the first-person perspective in an NDE. Finally, (3) the SDEr directly experiences elements that commonly occur in NDEs:

The SDEr observes that the dying person is out-of-body, meets deceased persons and a mystical being or presence. The SDEr observes that the dying person sees or is enveloped in a brilliant light and enters an unearthly or heavenly realm.

We can infer from the SDEr’s description of the dying person’s reactions and behavior that the dying person experiences a life review. From the dying person’s expressions of happiness or joy and peace, we can infer they are free from pain, having shed their physical body.

The SDEr themselves describes that their senses were more vivid and their sense of time changed. The SDEr receives veridical information from their experience which they later verify as accurate. The SDEr is told by the deceased person that they need to return to the body or the SDEr just finds themselves back in the body.

The SDEr’s observations indicate that the dying person experiences the same things that NDErs experience in their NDE. If we could administer the NDE Scale to the deceased person, the experience would be counted as an NDE. The elements in the two processes are indistinguishable. The only difference is that the dying person does not return to the physical body but continues to exist after physical death.

Thus, the “spirit body” of the deceased person observed by SDErs is the same as the mind entity that we propose is the essential aspect of the human being. The only difference between the deceased person and the NDEr is that the NDEr returns to physical embodiment whereas the deceased person moves on into a another realm. Thus the deceased person’s conscious Self survives 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.

Deceased encounters: Mays excerpt #20

The Mays write: The encounters with deceased persons during an NDE involve more than simple recognition. Generally there is a full encounter and conversation with the deceased persons, in which they give details about who they are and exhibit characteristic aspects of their personality and their relationship to the NDEr. The exchange with the deceased loved one can even involve the resolution of a regret or a strained relationship with the deceased person. Here is an example of such an encounter from Laurelynn’s NDE during surgery:

“[N]ext I felt a presence approaching from my right, upper side. I was feeling even more peaceful and happy, especially when I discovered it was my thirty-year-old brother-in-law who had died seven months earlier. Although I couldn’t see with my eyes or hear with my ears, I instinctively knew that it was him. He didn’t have a physical form, but a presence. I could feel, hear, and see his smile, laughter, and sense of humor. It was as if I had come home, and my brother-in-law was there to greet me. I instantly thought how glad I was to be with him because now I could make up for the last time I had seen him before his death. I felt bad about not taking the time out of my busy schedule to have a heart-to-heart talk with him when he had asked me to. I felt no remorse now, but total acceptance and love from him about my actions.”

The skeptical explanations for encounters with deceased persons—that they are due to expectation, wishful thinking, imagination, or a lucky guess—don’t hold up for these particular types of cases:

The NDEr can’t be expecting or wishing to meet someone whom they know is still alive or whom they don’t know exists. There appears to be some other influence that draws particular deceased persons to the NDEr—usually a strong familial connection or a close friend relationship; less frequently, it can be the need to give the NDEr a message to living persons.

The unusual and unexpected—yet precise—nature of the veridical information received from the deceased person can’t be the result of the NDEr’s imagination or a lucky guess.

These cases are strong indications of actual contact with those who have died and therefore that the minds of deceased persons continue after physical death. 

 

Furthermore, in these cases, the deceased person seeks contact with living people in order to convey information to them, which suggests that the deceased person is aware of and cares for those still living on Earth. The reality experienced by deceased persons appears to be a shared reality with human beings living on Earth.

 

 

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.