What is the best available evidence for the survival of human
consciousness after permanent bodily death? While numerous
scientific practitioners have attempted to conclusively answer this
question, none so far have succeeded.
Why not?
The kind of scientific evidence-seeking to which our society has become
accustomed isn't what we should be looking for here. The best evidence
is simply a new perspective on something we already know.
Despite the advances it has attained for humanity, the scientific
method is inadequate to conclusively answer the above question. Strong
innate curiosity has compelled many brilliant minds to pursue science,
usually using methods that overlay data with the rigidity of the scientific
method. However, some of these same researchers find that there are
times that this method does not — cannot — yield
accurate answers.
An integral and inextricable component
to the scientific method is observation. Observation is a
cripplingly missing element when it comes to what researchers call
“scientific” studies. It is not possible to effectively
employ the scientific method in studies on this subject because the
researchers cannot personally observe the data. They can only assemble
the testimony of experiencers into groupings and make some assumptions
that may or may not be what the individual narratives intended. Those
studies, while good tools, are not the best evidence. The
best evidence must come from individual near-death
experiencers telling their individual stories.
Part of what makes science so dependable is the fact that it is an
iterative process. In order for a theory to be scientifically accepted,
it must be repeatable on demand. Therefore, to say definitively that
human consciousness survives permanent bodily death from a purely
scientific standpoint, one would be required to repeatedly run the
experiment on demand and get the same results each time. Since this
would involve intentionally causing permanent bodily death to humans,
and then somehow communicating with the deceased in a documented and
verifiable manner, it cannot currently be done in a legal or humane
setting. (While such an experiment could theoretically be done with
terminal patients, it would be ineffective because so many such patients
are incoherent or unable to communicate at all.)
Interestingly, the idea of experimenting with life after death was
explored in the 2016 Netflix series The OA.(1)
In the fictional show, a doctor with an insatiable desire to know
what happens to human consciousness after death kidnaps five victims,
to be used as test subjects. He holds them captive for years as he
repeatedly kills and revives them to study what they tell him about
their time in the afterlife. While the show is highly entertaining,
it is also fascinating in its showcasing of not only the natural human
curiosity of the subject, but also the problems inherent in proving
anything related to the subject from a scientific standpoint.
(1) - 2016. The OA. Retrieved from https://www.netflix.com/title/80044950
