Who knows more about death than the dead and dying? Why anecdotal evidence isn’t dismissible.

It’s very illogical to me how some people will dismiss NDEs and Deathbed Visions because “well they’re dying, they’re not reliable”. Who is more reliable about what dying means and is like than the dying? If the majority of people who are actually experiencing death, including those who were atheists, experience their deceased loved ones and sometimes angels coming to help them to the other side and experience this vividly and coherently, it’s illogical and arrogant to say it’s not real because we, who aren’t dying, can’t see it. If one person sees something, that can be a hallucination. But if the majority of people in a given situation see the same exact things and show no signs of disorganized thinking, agitation, disorientation, etc. then there’s no reason to say they’re hallucinating. They’re just seeing something we’re not supposed to see yet.

And with NDEs, of course we know that hypoxia, DMTs, REM intrusion, all these materialist explanations have been debunked (though that doesn’t stop materialists insisting they are the “factual” cause). But furthermore, many of these experiences are beyond Near-Death, they’re actually death. If someone is frozen to death with all bodily functions slowed to near non-existence and their brain not functioning at all for hours, what is the difference between those hours and the hours, months, years after irreversible death? There’s none physically. There’s no way the brain is still functioning and working to create elaborate, organized experiences when it is shut down to conserve energy. The brain is in the same state it will be after death just with a pause on the physical decay of the matter, that’s the only difference and it’s downright religious to think the physical brain matter itself is so sacred that as long as it is not rotted it can still create and contain all consciousness without any of the highly organized electrical and chemical activity we associate with consciousness during life. That is treating the matter like a magical object that simply existing makes consciousness possible.

In a broader sense, I think it’s strange how quick some people are to dismiss what is actually experienced for what can be physically observed and put in a petri dish. There are people who genuinely argue there is no such thing as consciousness when that is the only thing we all can actually be sure exists because we experience it and to experience anything we must have it. Most of the most vital things in the world are experienced but can’t be “empirically proven” like consciousness, self, and love. Maybe some people misunderstand what “observation” in science means because it doesn’t mean only things we can see with our eyes or under a microscope, sciences like psychology are completely based on observing experiences and the consequences of those experiences. Yes, anecdotal evidence isn’t infallible and we should always be aware we can trick ourselves or misremember or misidentify but anecdotal evidence is NOT worthless and when it is statistically overwhelming (the majority of people who have lost a loved one feel they have had ADCs even if they’re atheists and the majority of dying patients have visions or dreams from deceased loved ones), consistent (actual hallucinations aren’t consistent, they’re disorganized, individual, and usually fear-based), and verifiable (not just once but repeatedly in controlled settings by different professionals) to dismiss anecdotal evidence is unscientific. Okay, rant over.