Most NDE's happen in a hospital. Many are verified by a doctor, who states that the there was NO brain activity going on. How then, can one experience an halucination or dream as vivid as reality, when the brain is not(or barely) functioning at all?

I do not agree with alot of what's on this website, but it addresses some documented NDE cases.

http://www.near-death.com/

And you can't say that an NDE is produced by the brain unless you can verify that consciousness IS bound to the brain.



That right there is just an assumption.

I think you misunderstand my point, or perhaps I'm not making it very clearly. I did not state that the brain produces NDE's, consciousness etc. I said it is critical in the experiencing of such.

I have been doing a bit more research online and I discovered this site. It has a wealth of information about death, NDE's, consciousness etc, and what some of the possibilities regarding all these things may be.

I also found on this site, this article which is interesting to say the least. It also states one case where a person was declared brain dead and recovered. Now, I'm willing to accept this could be the case, but it could also be a case of misdiagnosis. I know nothing more about the actual case in question so I'm a bit uncertain in this regard.

However, reading the article gives me pause because it states cases of NDE occurrence when brain activity had ceased. This is news to me, however I would like to say this only makes me more doubtful as the case used to make this point was of a woman undergoing brain surgery and medical means may have been used to keep her 'alive'. Also, no duration for the activity cessation is given. I'm trying to find this out.

While the article leads us to possibilities it draws no firm conclusion as the topic is still very uncertain as to the nature of how the components (the brain, consciousness etc) actually operate to provide the experience. I have modified my stance, though, and will dig around for more info about this.

Bear in mind, I'm not certain this changes the argument over whether sleep/unconsciousness is analogous to pre-birth/post-death. It's simply a very interesting diversion into the possibility of consciousness surviving death in some form.

P.S. I did not say I make no assumption, I said I try to minimise them. Your highlighting that I made an assumption has no relevance to our debate.

And a very real illusion at that!

Exactly therefore you cant ever tell what it is. How are we meant to believe in something we cant sense or define????



Then why use the word nothing? If language is used to describe SOMETHING then nothing must be something aye I mean the word nothing is used to describe something otherwise there wouldn't be the word.



Which is something. How could it be "simply is" anything if it is nothing?



So you cant convey via thought or word what nothing is nor can you show what it is and you say faith has nothing to do with nothing? You have contradicted yourself here.



So if a Christian fanatic said to you " stop trying to get a handle on how the bible makes sense and just accept it because you will fare better", you would?





I'd never try and compare my intelligence with your superior wisdom.

You tried I'll give you that.

You have definately taken a stab at debating it.

I meant no disrespect by it. Just wanted to make sure that everyone knew this was not 100% definite, and just an educated guess.

And brave, I agree with alot of people here... It's just an arguement of semantics. You're basically saying that nothing is something because we can define it. Well, how else would you want us to explain "nothing"? We'd have to try and define it in order to understand it. It's not "nothing" that is something, it is the understanding of the definition of nothing. Which, in my opinion, is something we can't really grasp. How can you think of nothing? You honestly can't...

Define this real you speak of, what is it, what is real, how do you know its real?

This is my point yet people still try and claim it exists. Man only knows what he thinks and cant say what he doesnt think for the very reason that he doesnt think it. Nothing is unthinkable so how can we ever say it exists. To believe in nothing is an act of faith.

I dont consciously know what is real yet but I have faith that "real" just is. And this "is" is nothing in particular including not being anything in particular. Either way whether I use words or silence I contradict myself in explaining what it is because it is beyond dualism and all form of expression implies dualism.

We've already said it correctly, nothing is the absence of something. That is just the basic definition of nothing. If there were actual nothingness, then the definition of itself wouldn't even exists. It makes perfect sense, and in no way makes "nothing" something. The definition may be something, the NAME may be something, but the absence of everything(Nothing) is simply nothing....

I've seen it written here in UM that we end up in the natural chain to the arguement of energy can not be created or destroyed ect ........... that we go back to the ground , our energy which isn't nothing being consumed by what in is the ground ( bugs , worms ect ) that uses that to create energy ect .... maybe that would explain the 'nothing'

I'd hate to think that was it., but it very well could be.

99.99999% of the Universe is made of 'nothing'.

People don't claim "IT EXISTS" they claim it doesn't exist. That's why its nothing.

I agree with Zero. You are playing semantics. Our attempts to understand nothing by using words or ideas is just evidence of our inability to explain it based on the limitation of language. Language is used to describe SOMETHING. Not nothing.

And as for your comment about the bible, I have stated repeatedly on here that just because something doesn't make sense for me doesn't mean I say it doesn't exist. It just doesn't exist FOR ME. I hold that it might make sense to them.

I am my own reality. What happens in my reality is mine. Not a universal statement.

I go away for a few days and look what happens, another of BNW's fascinating posts. Sorry to come in late, again, but to go back to the original post and the first few repies.

I did not exist prior to my conception. At most there was a potentiality for me to exist, within one sperm and one egg. I don't know exactly how much matter that is or its precise physical construction, but not much, I imagine. Only when i was concieved did "I" come into existence, and sometime (not as long as some think) into my development my brain had reached the point where it could begin to recieve signals from the external world. From that time on a combination of my hardware/wiring and my software/brain and mental processes began the process of constructing my consciousness.

It is neither logical, rational nor believable that this consciousness (my consciousness) existed prior to conception. Now that my conscious self awareness is up and running, it may seek many ways to preserve itself; from the philosohical construct that it has some sort of independent existence which may survive my physical death; through a similar religious construction; to the more logical, but probably vain hope, that in my lifetime scientists will learn enough about consciousness and the biology of the brain to develop alternate; storage, retrieval and processing devices. I honestly think this point is only a generation or two away, given modern scientific advances in this area.

At the moment, however, my consciousness dies with me. I become one again as I was before my conception.

The only caveat to this is that an entity, capable of manipulating time, space, energy and matter may already have developed such alternate storage devices and be able to resurrect my consciousness into them if it choses to do so.

The absence of something is the absence of something and is therefore something and not nothing.




Therefore it is an act of faith to believe in it's existence because we cannot observe it in any form.

From that angle all is energy and all energy has always existed eternall because it cant be created nor destroyed. We are made of this same energy and it is therefore logical to conclude that we too are eternal. That is my view anyway.

So really you are saying that 99.999999% percent of the universe isnt there?

I hate it when my carefully constructed post goes on the bottom of a page and then someone posts immediately after and its almost as if it died before it had a chance to be born

If it didnt exist then we wouldnt be able to label it. Let me put it this way: Get a slip of paper and write "nothing" on it. Then go put this label on nothing.



If nothing doesnt exist then stop calling it NOTHING how can you call someting by a name when that something doesnt exist?. How can you call something that doesnt exist anything at all? And yes I am playing semantics and when we try and claim things exist beyond words (and thought for words have their origin in thought) it is rational to ask for proof because anything outside the imagination cannot be proven to exist. That is why it is an act of faith to believe in "nothing". Because you are being asked to believe in something that is beyond the five senses and imagination.

Here is a very interesting quote about words from a science fiction novel. The words ring true even though it was written for fiction:

If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

The Open-Ended Proof from The Panoplia Prophetica

Beautiful aye?






But it still requires faith to believe in both God and nothing because both cannot be observed by the five senses (if you go by certain scientific logic).



No worries.

What you are before conception and after conception is something. Whether there be consciousness or unconsciousness there is something whatever it is. Nothing cannot be defined because to do so contradicts its definition. If it cannot be expressed in any way (and this too condradicts nothing because it is implying that it is something that cannot be expressed) how can we believe in its existence? To do so would be an act of faith.

nothing is just a term made that is given to a thing that is but isnt there....its a thing that cannot be seen or touched or study yet it can allow for something to exist or to be...nothing is a contractual thing thats only meaning to deem it on realism terms is nothing it the only word that we have gave to it to be able to identify it with reason...yet we have not fully comprehended the multitude and largely the understandment of wot it is used wen used for something we as of yet do not understand!

nothing is something just with a different systematics...thats all...its all from within the beholder of the thought...and how they approach and see the word, and where they use it and how they understand....
if the universe was created from nothing then that thing labeled nothing is actually something and warrants having a more realism approach to the meaning of the structural word...but its only because science has yet to understand and explain...that its not labeled correctly......some of these debates and questions are hard for some to understand as its a process of forward thinking....your are then being the examiner and scientist..the philosopher and the writ...you are constructing your own sense to comprehend some sort of understand ment of it....

the nothing as im referring to as i am stating is the void surrounding and within which all compositions started from the big bang lets say...the singularity point. this is the somthing...but beofr is my refernce..of the void of nothing...

It is but isnt there?



How can it exist to identify it with anything?


There is nothing there to comprehend though. It is out of the sphere of knowledge and sense-percpetion and imagination and therefore requires faith to believe in its existence or non-existence which are both forms of existence and therefore contradict the very meaning of what nothing is.

So "nothing" is in fact something because it is something with different systematics?




This I much agree with. Well said.



But it is something nevertheless and therefore not nothing. So we come back to square one which is "how can nothing" not exist?

No. 100% of the Universe is there. 99.9999% of it exists in a state of 'absence of something'. Consider an atom, consisting of a nucleus and electrons flying around the nucleus...at any given point in time, if we were to 'freeze frame' the atom we would find that between the nucleus and the electron is nothing, defined as 'the absence of something'. The 'something' would be the nucleus and the electron. However; that 'absence of something' in between is definitely 'something'. It is 'the space between'. The atom cannot exist without 'the space between'. Can we say that the 'space between' is nothing? Not really; it is something...it is 'the space between'. Referring to 'the space between' which exists as a state of 'the absence of something', we call it 'nothing'....and yet I have just defined the 'absence of something' as 'something'. Again proving the premise that nothing exists. Therefore if nothing exists, then nothing exists after death as well. Does the life force exist after death?...that is an entirely different question.

If we use the above example of the atom and the space between and we apply it to the Universe as a whole...what is between the star systems? Nothing? Exactly! And so I offer the equation:

If A = B and B=C, then A = C.

A=Nothing
B=The Space Between
C=Something

If A(Nothing)=B(The Space Between) and B(The Space Between)=C(Something), then A(Nothing)=C(Something)

Nothing=Something

It is actually believed by some scientists that in one cubic centre metre of empty space is more energy than all the matter in the entire seeable universe. So there is something between the electron and nucleus if they are right. If not then there is space in between and space certainly isnt nothing.



Great equation

How is it an act of faith? It's just obvious and logical. If there is nothing at all, no time, no space, no matter, no anything. That is nothing... I'd rather call it the "absence of anything" because I feel you will say it's still something.


EDIT: How is "The Space Between" something? The term "The Space Between" is something, but the actual space in-between is nothing. If you're going to tell me it IS something because it IS space, what happens if that space didn't exist? It would be nothing...

Nothing is the opposite of something. Just like no money is the opposite of money. So if nothing can still be something, what's stopping no money from being an amount of money? See what I'm saying? It does not make any logical sense.

The absence of anything is still something. Words are used to indicate/symbolize concepts. If nothing truly existed then the word nothing would never have been coined up in the first place because there would be nothing to symbolize.



If space didnt exist? If space didnt exist then the preceding reality in which there is no space would exist or to put it another way reality would be spaceless which is "something".



No money is the amount of having no money and not nothing. Nothing and something are perceived opposites but they are both "things". Nothing is the opposite to something and therefore it is something which is the opposite to something.

How can anyone claim that 'nothing' is anything at all?

"Nothing" cannot be examined on it's own, it is interdependent with the concept of "something" to have any meaning.

"Nothing" is just a hypothetical possability. If nothing existed, then we wouldn't even be here to call it something, obviously.



And what if reality did not exist? That's the point. Nothing is the absence of every single thing you can come up with.



Well using your logic, you can say that even if I have $0.00, I still have an amount of money, even that I have NO money.

Interesting topic. Have u all hear of yin and yang. so now let me explain. You need black to have white, minus to have plus , empty to have full and u can go on and on and on. The answer is so simple yet it is so hard to understand. It is at your hand yet u still search for it. You know the answer but u belive that it wrong. that why we are here and searching for our purpose, holding firmly to your ignorance. Because we need both to exist because without one where wont be another.

Perhaps THIS is the after death.... before the next life?

Therefore "nothing" is something that is interdependent with another concept and is something. So again we are back to square one. Nothing is something.

So if nothing is a hypothetical possability it is that then and therefore something.



Therefore nothing would be the absence of ever single thing you can come up with and therefore it would be that and that is something.



No money isnt nothing. No money is the absence of money and is hardly nothingness at all.

That is quite a possibility.

\

Because we use language to try to discuss concepts. Basically we are entertaining ourselves. You are getting all worked up in the labeling as the reality. Its a little silly actually.

You yourself say "Go write nothing on a piece of paper and now go put it on nothing" We can't. We can't access nothing. Anyway again with you just playing games to win the argument.

I think that's why I don't even bother with you. You present these things as philosophical debates but really you just want to win the argument and "Be right"


If I believe in certain words I believe in their hidden arguments? SAYS WHO again.....no I don't.

So in others words you cant tell me what nothing is.

I don't need to tell you what nothing is. Nothing IS. If you don't believe it then that's fine and dandy. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist to other people.

You are acting like your personal reality is the universal truth and its not. Its just your perspective.

You obviously don't understand nothing, so it doesn't exist to you. It does exist to those who understand it.

Nothing is something, nothing is nothing. Something is something, something is nothing. You return to square one simply because you continue to attempt to isolate the concept of nothing as a thing that has intrinsic reality. Yet it does not, "nothing" is an abstract thought, an illusion created by the mind to categorize the experience of the real.
You must empty your cup to taste my tea.

So what do you hope to gain from this discussion?

Nothing.

ROTFLMAO

Smack yourself for me would ya.

Unless it isn't.

[

No, what i was before conception was nothing. There was not even the potentiality of my existence. If not for a series of (for me) fortuitous events, I would have remained nothing.

The philosophical debate about defining nothing is meaningless in this instance. I had no existence, which to me equates with nothingness.

Personally, I disagree with you that the state of nothingness cannot exist or be defined. This is just a reflection of your inability to conceptualise/ visualise nothing- ness. Even if no one had the ability to do so, nothingness would still exist; in the same way that an apple would exist even if no one had the physical or conceptual ability to see/visualise it.

The fallacy of your logic is linked to your philosophical belief in the existence of consciousness as a separate entity. So, for you, the apple only exists because of consciousness; and because consciousness is all pervasive, nothingness cannot be possible.

This is the age old question. Since the first animal died, internal questions have been raised-- what happens after death? No one really knows, in terms of another possible conscious dimension. But, I bet you 99.9% of people could tell you that they have never met a dead person who told them what the afterlife is like. I personally don't believe there is, at least in a similar, conscious form. I have no way of proving that of course, but I can say that I have never been presented with any evidence otherwise. Believing in life after death, in my mind, is nothing more than a fantasy... I'm more interested in thinking about today and tomorrow, rather than where I may/might go after death. I think the question of an afterlife is a good one to ask yourself. Because, whether or not you believe in one... it really comes down to how you live your life here and now. To question it should challenge yourself spiritually to make the most out of life.

y dont u belive in life after death but u be interesting to think about today or tomoro because death is so near that it can happen to any of us in a mather of second or milisecond or even less. Every thing had a relationship to other such as with out death there are no living, without start there wil be no end. And so the circle turn over and over again just it run in a diffrent diction to us to idealise it.

If nothing IS then nothing is and therefore is something since something is.



Only I can know my personal reality and who are you to say it isnt the universal truth? What if my personal reality tells me that it isnt just my perspective and that it is the universal truth?



You are quite right. I dont understand "nothing". And to be honest you havnt exactly shown me that you do too

Ahhh and an abstract thought, an illusion created by the mind to catergorize experience of the real isnt something?



So much easier said than done.



What have I got to lose?

Quite right