Celebrity NDEs offer hints of life after death

[UM-Bot]

Several famous figures have opened up about their own personal near-death experiences over the years.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/324605/celebrity-ndes-offer-hints-of-life-after-death

[Duke Wellington]

1 hour ago, UM-Bot said:

Several famous figures have opened up about their own personal near-death experiences over the years.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/324605/celebrity-ndes-offer-hints-of-life-after-death

I have a theory about all of that. In the year 3000 civilization has stepped outside of space-time and can recover everybody who has ever lived. They are careful not to disrupt our timeline (by removing dead bodies) so they simply suck out peoples consciousnesses shortly after death. As civilization already exists outside of time at that point then it has always existed outside of time. So from our perspective there is not a 1000 year wait to be recovered, it happens instantly.

Or maybe something means that they can only suck us out, even just for momentary contact, when dead. Then if we are to live send us back. Or maybe its not about disrupting the timeline but not wanting to alter the experience of life for us unnecessarily.

[mdbuilder]

Transendental levitation...

[Trenix]

Just because you're famous, does not mean you have more credibility than those who aren't.

[Susanc241]

On the whole I think this phenomenon can only really be commented on if you have experienced it yourself. It's solely subjective. I am torn between this being a 'real' occurrence and a construct of the brain as it is deprived of oxygen. More than that I cannot say.

[White Crane Feather]

7 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

I have a theory about all of that. In the year 3000 civilization has stepped outside of space-time and can recover everybody who has ever lived. They are careful not to disrupt our timeline (by removing dead bodies) so they simply suck out peoples consciousnesses shortly after death. As civilization already exists outside of time at that point then it has always existed outside of time. So from our perspective there is not a 1000 year wait to be recovered, it happens instantly.

Or maybe something means that they can only suck us out, even just for momentary contact, when dead. Then if we are to live send us back. Or maybe its not about disrupting the timeline but not wanting to alter the experience of life for us unnecessarily.

I have had similar thoughts. It could be possible that at some point we reach the singularity and an AI is born inside of a quantum computer that has solved all problems in nature. Indeed it may simply save our consciousness ness through time and implant it in a simulation. A quantum computer powerful enough may be able to manipulate time. I don’t really believe it, because time really dosn't exist in the sense of it being a thing. Essentially the future and the past or only abstract constructs, but it is still possible dare I say likely that we do live in a “simulation” maintained by a higher inteligence that saves our concoisness on some other platform when we die. 

[White Crane Feather]

4 hours ago, Susanc241 said:

On the whole I think this phenomenon can only really be commented on if you have experienced it yourself. It's solely subjective. I am torn between this being a 'real' occurrence and a construct of the brain as it is deprived of oxygen. More than that I cannot say.

We have spent a lot of time over the years discussing and arguing over this topic. The interesting thing to ask your self is what is the likely hood a random universe would evolve consciousness beings that just happened to have experiences that mimic what we would expect having soul and an afterlife? Floating out of your body, bright lights, loving feelings, meeting loved ones... etc etc. All from a randomly evolve brain. It seems unlikely. 

[glorybebe]

7 hours ago, Trenix said:

Just because you're famous, does not mean you have more credibility than those who aren't.

No, but, they can be ridiculed worse than Joe Blow down the road.

I met a guy who died for 10 mins from a heart attack until resuscitation.  He told me he had felt at peace and saw his dad.  He looked forward to dying now, but, promised his wife he would stick around for as long as he could.  He told me not to be afraid to pass on.

 

[pbarosso]

i believe that the place where our souls live (even now) is devoid of actual real experience and originality. the creator, seeking something for his creations (us) to "experience" created a way for us to have true freedom and to have experiences outside of his dimension or plane. 

this is how he created "freedom" for those which did not have true freedom before. like the angels, he created them and they were bound by his vision of their existence, never experiencing any control or direction of their own. so he created a universe which "runs" or "works" by itself and we are allowed to come into it and have experiences. then we go back to "heaven" and populate it with original creations out of our own experiences. like climbing trees for example........prior to coming here there were no trees to climb and no joy to be had of feeling the wind in our faces and hearing the wind in the branches, so when we die we can have that in heaven without the creator just giving it to us.

I think this is what tolkien envisioned when he wrote the silmarillion beginning....the valaquenta i believe IIRC.

[Silver Surfer]

Surely they mean plastic surgery...

[Gecks]

Interesting reading through the comments as there is scientific reasoning for this due to an altered state of consciousness and the causes of oxygen depletion on the visual cortex. Combined with the manifestation of memories and hallucinations perhaps as the brains way of dealing with the stress.

[preacherman76]

I came pretty close to a full blown NDE back when I was 14 or so. Damn near drowned in a flooded stream. I remember looking up and seeing the sunlight through the white water bubbles. The yellow sunlight suddenly became white, and this crazy peace came over me. I suddenly didn't even care that I was about to die. I was just a few seconds away from taking water in my lungs when suddenly, and I have no idea how, but next thing I knew my head was like pushed above the water. I got one good breath, and went under again. Lucky for me the stream soon began to widen and the currents subsided and I was able to get out. I'll never forget that peaceful feeling.

[Spunned]

I can't help but think that NDEs are only the brain trying to figure out what's going on when you're about to die and nothing more.

[preacherman76]

56 minutes ago, Spunned said:

I can't help but think that NDEs are only the brain trying to figure out what's going on when you're about to die and nothing more.

Its possible. Though there are cases where that is unlikely the cause.

[White Crane Feather]

3 hours ago, Gecks said:

Interesting reading through the comments as there is scientific reasoning for this due to an altered state of consciousness and the causes of oxygen depletion on the visual cortex. Combined with the manifestation of memories and hallucinations perhaps as the brains way of dealing with the stress.

Those are not scientific explanations. Those are guesses boxed in by a materialistic deterministic world view. I can also say that my feeling of satisfaction after having a good meal is simply do to a nurochemical reward system that evolved so that I would remember and seek  more experiences that help me to live have sex and children. Yeah..... but just because it is all nurochemisty dosnt mean that the meal wasn’t real. 

If I get punched in the face, all kinds of nurocheemistry happens.... that dosn’t mean I didn’t get punched in the face.

Logically what we are dealing with here is the difference between Cause, catalyst, effects, and manifestation. 

In the old days if you had a television, you may adjust the antenna to get a clear picture to experience a program. If you did something wrong the program would disappear in a haze of static. The lak of a picture (effect) was caused by a multitude of things, but let’s just say interference for now. The catalyst that starts the process to getting the picture back is your desire to experience a program. You get up and adjust the antenna until the picture is back and satisfaction is manifested.

Dying brain apologists illogically assume that their materialist paradime is correct. It’s as if they assume that the program originates in the television. Don’t get me wrong, it may very well be the case, but the assumption is the problem. And the reason it’s a problem is because they arrive at that conclusion because if you mess with the brain (television) then the picture ( consciousness) gets messed up. Well yeah. No matter what the reality is, that is going to be the case, so there is no logical reasoning to assume that the television (brain) is responsible for the picture. It certainly is part of the chain, but the assumption that it’s the cause is founded in philosophy not science. Likewise, the assumption that it is receiving the picture is also philosophy.

We know that a television is a receiver unless a film is hard wired into the machine.

Because NDEs have such clear intercultural and temporal consistency we have to draw the conclusion that experiential themes of the spiritual sort are either hard wired into the brain (like a VCR maybe) or received from somewhere else (like a broadcast). 

These themes are strikingly consistent with either there being some sort of soul that leaves the body, or nature in its complexity wants us to just think our conscious is leaving the body and having some sort of soul like experience. Even without the many thousands of annecdotes and confirmations from doctors about real time out of body observations, the idea that nature is somehow trying to deceive us seem like more of a logical leap than the possibility that the brain is a receiver of these experiences rather than a generator. 

Remember that science is a process.. a method ( and a dam good one) not a philosophy. Assuming conclusions, and applying phlsophical bias towords a phenomenon is very unscientific. Largely this is what dieing brain hypothesis people seem to be guilty of a lot of the time. All manner of creations come out of this phisophical approach. My favorite is the hilarious ideas that the light at the end of the tunnel is a memory from birth and comeing from the birth canal to the outer world.  

Let’s face the facts here. Dying on an ancient battlefield, drowning with no hope of rescue, being eaten by a lion, or simply having a heart attack 200 years ago is no time for feelings of peace after floating out of your body and seing yourself there, tranquility, and being joyfully wisked off to hang out with deceased loved ones in the preasence of loving beings of light. The evolutionary pressures to survive simply don’t fit if we are to assume these experiences are hard wired into the brain like a dog knowing how to bury a bone with no role models or training. Further more, the incidents of these experiences are extremely closely corolated in time with the invention of life saveing technology that is able to bring people back from closer and closer to actual death. That is a hell of a smoking gun at least to the idea that we all may experience something similar when we die. 

 

 

 

Edited January 6, 2019 by White Crane Feather

[preacherman76]

Well said White Crane. The science on this subject is more then lacking. Such a shame too, that our most brilliant minds dismiss this subject, or even actively work to side step it, instead of embracing every possibility. The way a scientist should.

[spartan max2]

Hey @White Crane Feather and @preacherman76.

I use to be really into NDE's as proof of an afterlife, you two might remember me posting years ago. I sort of lost faith in the whole idea though after becoming a therapist and working with mentally ill patients, plus my mom had a psychotic break as well as one of my friends,  you can only witness so many psychotic breaks and mental disorders before you start to feel that everything must just be by random accident. 

NDE"S are my last speck of hope in there being an afterlife, but I still strongly lean towards them being just a product of a dying brain. 

My objection to your first point: 

Quote

The interesting thing to ask your self is what is the likely hood a random universe would evolve consciousness beings that just happened to have experiences that mimic what we would expect having soul and an afterlife? Floating out of your body, bright lights, loving feelings, meeting loved ones... etc etc. All from a randomly evolve brain. It seems unlikely. 

My issue with this is that it is a "chicken or egg" argument, which came first? Did our idea of the afterlife come from people experiencing NDE's and sharing those experiences with others, or is our idea of the afterlife there because the afterlife is there? Advancements in medical technology has led to more people being around to share these experiences, but I have no dout in the past enough people survived to share them as well.

 

 The other point I want to mention:

Quote

Let’s face the facts here. Dying on an ancient battlefield, drowning with no hope of rescue, being eaten by a lion, or simply having a heart attack 200 years ago is no time for feelings of peace after floating out of your body and seing yourself there, tranquility, and being joyfully wisked off to hang out with deceased loved ones in the preasence of loving beings of light. The evolutionary pressures to survive simply don’t fit if we are to assume these experiences are hard wired into the brain like a dog knowing how to bury a bone with no role models or training. Further more, the incidents of these experiences are extremely closely corolated in time with the invention of life saveing technology that is able to bring people back from closer and closer to actual death. That is a hell of a smoking gun at least to the idea that we all may experience something similar when we die. 

Evolution does not always work the way we think it should, the process often has what I call "Blips". Sometimes mutations happen and get passed on, not because it helped a species to survive but simply because the mutation was not harmful enough to make the specifies more likely to die. Sometimes blips can even happen that are harmful, like Schizophrenia. I want to believe NDE's are real but it feels to me that it could easily be a by product of how the brain evolved. 

 

The universal elements of the experience lends credibility to NDE's being real, but you can also see it as universal elements just because humans all have human brains, so we all have the same by product experience.  

 

Quote

If I get punched in the face, all kinds of nurocheemistry happens.... that dosn’t mean I didn’t get punched in the face

I strongly agree with this. Any feeling or sensation can be reproduced in the brain. The brain scan of someone who thinks they are talking to "angels" in the room will look the same as someone who is actually talking to people in the room. 

 

I respect you two a lot, sorry to rain on your parade  lol

 

 

[preacherman76]

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

Hey @White Crane Feather and @preacherman76.

I use to be really into NDE's as proof of an afterlife, you two might remember me posting years ago. I sort of lost faith in the whole idea though after becoming a therapist and working with mentally ill patients, plus my mom had a psychotic break as well as one of my friends,  you can only witness so many psychotic breaks and mental disorders before you start to feel that everything must just be by random accident. 

NDE"S are my last speck of hope in there being an afterlife, but I still strongly lean towards them being just a product of a dying brain. 

 

That's funny you say that. My wife is going to school to be a social worker, and has witnessed much of what you speak of here. All I can say is I believe often the mind get trapped in programs we create. Then we begin to believe those programs are who we are. Some obviously take things much further then others do. However I have seen what seem like miracles when one choses to think mindfully, and separate from their thoughts. Begin to block out the thoughts that no longer serve them, or never really did to begin with.

Id say hold on to that speck of hope, and hold on tightly.  

[spartan max2]

7 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

That's funny you say that. My wife is going to school to be a social worker, and has witnessed much of what you speak of here. All I can say is I believe often the mind get trapped in programs we create. Then we begin to believe those programs are who we are. Some obviously take things much further then others do. However I have seen what seem like miracles when one choses to think mindfully, and separate from their thoughts. Begin to block out the thoughts that no longer serve them, or never really did to begin with.

Id say hold on to that speck of hope, and hold on tightly.  

Yeah expierences effect everyone differently. A lot of social workers I've met and worked with are really spiritual, the spirituality has led alot of them to the field.

 

IDK how people see the mental illnesses and still have faith, but you never know how expierences will effect someone, I suppose. 

Edited January 6, 2019 by spartan max2

[preacherman76]

36 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Yeah expierences effect everyone differently. A lot of social workers I've met and worked with are really spiritual, the spirituality has led alot of them to the field.

 

IDK how people see the mental illnesses and still have faith, but you never know how expierences will effect someone, I suppose. 

We are on a ball of water and dirt being flung through space man. We probably don't know much at all. We do have hope though, if we chose so.

[White Crane Feather]

3 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

Hey @White Crane Feather and @preacherman76.

I use to be really into NDE's as proof of an afterlife, you two might remember me posting years ago. I sort of lost faith in the whole idea though after becoming a therapist and working with mentally ill patients, plus my mom had a psychotic break as well as one of my friends,  you can only witness so many psychotic breaks and mental disorders before you start to feel that everything must just be by random accident. 

NDE"S are my last speck of hope in there being an afterlife, but I still strongly lean towards them being just a product of a dying brain. 

My objection to your first point: 

My issue with this is that it is a "chicken or egg" argument, which came first? Did our idea of the afterlife come from people experiencing NDE's and sharing those experiences with others, or is our idea of the afterlife there because the afterlife is there? Advancements in medical technology has led to more people being around to share these experiences, but I have no dout in the past enough people survived to share them as well.

 

 The other point I want to mention:

Evolution does not always work the way we think it should, the process often has what I call "Blips". Sometimes mutations happen and get passed on, not because it helped a species to survive but simply because the mutation was not harmful enough to make the specifies more likely to die. Sometimes blips can even happen that are harmful, like Schizophrenia. I want to believe NDE's are real but it feels to me that it could easily be a by product of how the brain evolved. 

 

The universal elements of the experience lends credibility to NDE's being real, but you can also see it as universal elements just because humans all have human brains, so we all have the same by product experience.  

 

I strongly agree with this. Any feeling or sensation can be reproduced in the brain. The brain scan of someone who thinks they are talking to "angels" in the room will look the same as someone who is actually talking to people in the room. 

 

I respect you two a lot, sorry to rain on your parade  lol

 

 

Hahahah. Mutual respect is the only way to have a discussion. We can bypass so much of the bull**** and posturing that we have to deal with from cynics. Real intelligent skepticism is necessery. Ill address your points in reverse order. By the way. I’m not trying to convince you. Only bringin up things to think about. 

My first question is how do you know they were not really talking to angels? Is it because you don’t believe in them, which is very reasonable, or is it that you have some way of verifying their insanity and then assume everything they experience is a dellusion. Which is also reasonable to an extent. Down to the core logic, I can only verify someone’s insanity if they tell me a dellusion that I can verify isn’t true.  We are going to say someone is insane if they have experiences that don’t fit with reality.

My own half brother went crazy actually. Drug induced I believe. He tried to convince me that the police had put him in an oven like room trying to kill him. He believed he was saved from being roasted alive because his dark Native American hair absorbed all the heat. Obviously I can’t fit that within any sane reality. It’s okay to laugh. I chuckle every time I repeat that story. 

Here is the thing. I am well aware of the vast virtual ability of the human mind. You may know already that I haven dreams hat are like real life that seem to last for weeks. Sometimes I wonder if our virtual environments are not real universes. So now we have to ask ourselves if there are angels and things out there that only have connections to our consciousness, how would we know if they are real or not without the typical empirical data? If you talk to angels, like I do, how do you know it’s not simply like a dream construct or a character. The answer, for me at least, is that you don’t be try to. The concept of real or not real is simply a matter of which word you are operating in. There is this environment, then there is the other one. The question of if the other one is solely a brain construct really isn’t answerable, so the scientist does not assume to know the answer. Instead one foot goes in one world and one foot goes in ther other. Confusing the two is insanity, but interplay between the two can be very useful. 

I don’t know if I’m making any sense. You seem to be trying to make a judgment about the greater reality based off of if that person’s angels exist independently of her brain or not. If there is a spiritual realm, and that is certainly a big if, it’s  a realm of pure consciousness and experience. We would never be to tell if her angels are real or not, so why try. Science does not adress unanswerable questions. Instead I would embrace her angels as a real part of her world. Make no mistake we don’t live in the outer world, we live in the inner one receiving streams of information from the outer one that are interpreted and pluged into the virtual environment that we are creating. How accurately our virtual creation is representing the outer world is what we call sanity. I don’t mean to sound like solipsist, but it’s all created by us, you, me etc. The outer reality is far bigger and more complicated than our streams of info can infrom us on. It’s in these spaces that things like angels could exist independent of our creations. I wish you could see how easy it is for me to work with an autistic child or even a severly delusional person simply because I have come to realize that perception is reality and objective reality is actually layered. 

****... I’m writting a lot again. But these subjects are complicated. 

True. As I mentioned in the post you responded to. It’s possible that NDE like experiences are hard wired into our brain. When I see my dog burying a bone, I have to realize that that behavior and knowledge to do that did not come from me, nor has he ever seen another dog do it. It’s knowledge wired into his very DNA. These experiences could also be apart of our DNA. This would account for the universal themes that happen even with children not exposed to the cultural element. But here we go making assumptions again. Scientific statements come in the form of likely hoods with margins for error. We know in nature nothing is really absolute. Hell there is a tiny, undisputed by science, possibility that if you jump off a cliff, you could teleport to the moon. With data we toss out the tails of the bell curve once we can determing that the extreme tails are far enough it to be inconsequential. Carl Jung actually had problem with this. So if we want to think logically and scientifically without doing the actual science or in places where science cannot be done, then we weigh things by likelihood’s (for sure try to keep emotions out of the mix). Is it possible that evolution for whatever reason hardwired those experiences into our brains by mere chance? Yes... but is it likely? You have two choices ...a very long set of extremely unlikely environmemts in which all those universal themes and our ability to experience them upon approaching death provided some sort of survival benefit, or just a large set of accidental quirks. Maybe both. Maybe the light is a quirk of the brain, while seeing loved ones provides a survival benefit because in more conscious stressful scenarios seeking people that care about you will help you live. But dam... how unlikely is it that all of these things fit together to start to form an outline of exactly what one would expect of a life after death is true. 

If you took an intelligent computer/concious Android  or separate observer unaware of culture, the resistance against the idea of an after life, and indeed separate from any personal connection what so ever, and you asked it to try and predict ways we could tell if there was an afterlife in a reality that very weekly if at all interacts with this one, what would it come up with?( of course you have to assume the existance of a spirit body in some way being able to experience things in somewhat similar ways as a physical one)  It’s nearly an impossible excercise because we are not separate and purly logical, but we can try. I have put a lot of thought into the issue, and I believe the computer would predict things like, sensations and experiences of leaving the body, meeting with other beings that care about you, lights and others phnomonon associated with the transitions between realities, etc etc. Interpretation issues and errors because of the different natures of the realities. You see it all starts to fit. I think The NDE is exactly what a logical disinterested intelligence would predict if it were true. The unlikeliness of the other options, given what we know about evolution, seems to be more far fetched once you cutout the wow factor. 

What else? Well we can have real objective hypothesis now to test because we have droped bias. How scientific right? It’s my prediction that the incidence of NDEs will increase with advances in life saving technology because more of a percentage of people will be pulled from the brink. I havent done it, but if I could run a regression, I’ll betcha a quarter it’s already true within the last 100 years. And yes the NDE has happend before modern tech. This where we get terms like “my life flashed before my eyes.” Because these universal themes have been around... well probably ever since we were capable of experiencing them and then articulating it to others. This should tell us something.

To your chicken and egg. As mentioned it’s pretty easy to decipher if it’s cultural or not. The themes shouldn't exist in the minds of children that are not exposed to them culturally. They do. Maybe one or two of the concepts could have been picked up on television or something, but I find it unlikely that the entire construct is given to children that have NDEs by culture. I can verify thins from experience. My OBEs follow the typical path of the shaman, yet even being part Native American, early on in my life, I had never had any exposure to out of body flight etc etc. I can tell you with personal confidence  if that means anything, that whatever it is,

its already there. Which of course brings up another issue. How into the hell did early humans know what flight is like? How did they known the existance of vast wheels in the sky (galaxies?). There are a lot of questions to be answered, and the typical cynicism simply represents itself as lazy fundamentalism.

And yes. I have watched people succumb to metal illness myself. But again, televisions go bad sometimes. Pictures get distorted. Just because something can go wrong dosnt mean  much. If there is a soul, there is no doubt, there is an interplay going on with it and the brain to manifest in the outer world. Screw with the antenna, you are going to mess up the flow of the picture. 

Furthermore. A soul would still be a person. The flow of perception, self reflection, identity etc etc are all important if we can even say we exist at all. It’s just as possible that some mental illness is deeper than biology. We know that a lot of mental illness dosnt seem to have a biological signature and stem from trauma and experience rather than brain chemistry and structure. Souls can be deranged to which also fits a ton of human lore and experience. 

Well then thank you for reading my book....Hahahahah. Whatever your personal conclusions end up being, at least you know where I’m comeing from. 

 

 

Edited January 6, 2019 by White Crane Feather

[Gecks]

6 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

Those are not scientific explanations. Those are guesses boxed in by a materialistic deterministic world view. I can also say that my feeling of satisfaction after having a good meal is simply do to a nurochemical reward system that evolved so that I would remember and seek  more experiences that help me to live have sex and children. Yeah..... but just because it is all nurochemisty dosnt mean that the meal wasn’t real. 

If I get punched in the face, all kinds of nurocheemistry happens.... that dosn’t mean I didn’t get punched in the face.

Logically what we are dealing with here is the difference between Cause, catalyst, effects, and manifestation. 

In the old days if you had a television, you may adjust the antenna to get a clear picture to experience a program. If you did something wrong the program would disappear in a haze of static. The lak of a picture (effect) was caused by a multitude of things, but let’s just say interference for now. The catalyst that starts the process to getting the picture back is your desire to experience a program. You get up and adjust the antenna until the picture is back and satisfaction is manifested.

Dying brain apologists illogically assume that their materialist paradime is correct. It’s as if they assume that the program originates in the television. Don’t get me wrong, it may very well be the case, but the assumption is the problem. And the reason it’s a problem is because they arrive at that conclusion because if you mess with the brain (television) then the picture ( consciousness) gets messed up. Well yeah. No matter what the reality is, that is going to be the case, so there is no logical reasoning to assume that the television (brain) is responsible for the picture. It certainly is part of the chain, but the assumption that it’s the cause is founded in philosophy not science. Likewise, the assumption that it is receiving the picture is also philosophy.

We know that a television is a receiver unless a film is hard wired into the machine.

Because NDEs have such clear intercultural and temporal consistency we have to draw the conclusion that experiential themes of the spiritual sort are either hard wired into the brain (like a VCR maybe) or received from somewhere else (like a broadcast). 

These themes are strikingly consistent with either there being some sort of soul that leaves the body, or nature in its complexity wants us to just think our conscious is leaving the body and having some sort of soul like experience. Even without the many thousands of annecdotes and confirmations from doctors about real time out of body observations, the idea that nature is somehow trying to deceive us seem like more of a logical leap than the possibility that the brain is a receiver of these experiences rather than a generator. 

Remember that science is a process.. a method ( and a dam good one) not a philosophy. Assuming conclusions, and applying phlsophical bias towords a phenomenon is very unscientific. Largely this is what dieing brain hypothesis people seem to be guilty of a lot of the time. All manner of creations come out of this phisophical approach. My favorite is the hilarious ideas that the light at the end of the tunnel is a memory from birth and comeing from the birth canal to the outer world.  

Let’s face the facts here. Dying on an ancient battlefield, drowning with no hope of rescue, being eaten by a lion, or simply having a heart attack 200 years ago is no time for feelings of peace after floating out of your body and seing yourself there, tranquility, and being joyfully wisked off to hang out with deceased loved ones in the preasence of loving beings of light. The evolutionary pressures to survive simply don’t fit if we are to assume these experiences are hard wired into the brain like a dog knowing how to bury a bone with no role models or training. Further more, the incidents of these experiences are extremely closely corolated in time with the invention of life saveing technology that is able to bring people back from closer and closer to actual death. That is a hell of a smoking gun at least to the idea that we all may experience something similar when we die. 

 

 

 

A very fair point you put foward. 

Considering science works on a hypothesis and we cant exactly moraly produce repetitive tests for the effects of the brain dying.

However even though these may be ultimately guesses the experts in the field of neuroscience arent stupid people and dont publish these 'guesses' as you say, because theyre thowing out ideas on a whim. They're produced over years of hard research, testing and observation and understanding of brain function. 

Now the only reason people believe in NDEs is why? Because of a rooted belief in the afterlife? a soul that has to travel somewhere? Now if we, as a people are to be 'guessing' at anything there is what true evidence of an afterlife or a soul? Or even a god for that matter. Its just a notion people believe, as they always have as a reasoning mechanism for the creation of the world and looking for a meaning and something after we die. Gods and ideas of the afterlife have been around thousands and thousands of years. Obviously our current biggest religion in more western society being christianity and a book with a cross on the front isn't proof of anything. Its all based on belief. And at the very roots of its teachings are you must believe.

Im not saying this to hurt anyones ideas or beiefs ( and have no interest getting into a debate on such) but hard facts are we have a brain here on earth, in front of us. We still have much to learn and understand but we also have researched and tested this lump in our heads and have a good understanding of how it operates.  You used the tv example.... when your tv is assembled, and when it breaks, we know what parts make it work and can assess what parts have broken. Neuroscientists have a good understanding of how the brain operates and when it breaks, the areas that no longer operate.

So heres what we have... honestly:

A body and brain. We have proof of this and a solid scientific understanding of its operation

The idea of a soul and afterlife. 0 actual PROOF that these things exist at all and are nothing more than ones personal beliefs.

0 actual proof theres anything after death than you no longer cease to exist in any form. Any other notion is simply belief.

 

For me personally, based on that conclusion, the notion of NDEs are produced as a manifestation of a dying brain is the answer. This is based on actual fact. It doesnt mean its the correct answer, it doesnt mean you dont have a soul and go to an afterlife or another dimension or any of those things. But considering theres no actual tangible evidence or proof of those other elements other than you believe them to exist, they cant be reasoned in a scientific argument. 

[White Crane Feather]

2 hours ago, Gecks said:

A very fair point you put foward. 

Considering science works on a hypothesis and we cant exactly moraly produce repetitive tests for the effects of the brain dying.

However even though these may be ultimately guesses the experts in the field of neuroscience arent stupid people and dont publish these 'guesses' as you say, because theyre thowing out ideas on a whim. They're produced over years of hard research, testing and observation and understanding of brain function. 

Now the only reason people believe in NDEs is why? Because of a rooted belief in the afterlife? a soul that has to travel somewhere? Now if we, as a people are to be 'guessing' at anything there is what true evidence of an afterlife or a soul? Or even a god for that matter. Its just a notion people believe, as they always have as a reasoning mechanism for the creation of the world and looking for a meaning and something after we die. Gods and ideas of the afterlife have been around thousands and thousands of years. Obviously our current biggest religion in more western society being christianity and a book with a cross on the front isn't proof of anything. Its all based on belief. And at the very roots of its teachings are you must believe.

Im not saying this to hurt anyones ideas or beiefs ( and have no interest getting into a debate on such) but hard facts are we have a brain here on earth, in front of us. We still have much to learn and understand but we also have researched and tested this lump in our heads and have a good understanding of how it operates.  You used the tv example.... when your tv is assembled, and when it breaks, we know what parts make it work and can assess what parts have broken. Neuroscientists have a good understanding of how the brain operates and when it breaks, the areas that no longer operate.

So heres what we have... honestly:

A body and brain. We have proof of this and a solid scientific understanding of its operation

The idea of a soul and afterlife. 0 actual PROOF that these things exist at all and are nothing more than ones personal beliefs.

0 actual proof theres anything after death than you no longer cease to exist in any form. Any other notion is simply belief.

 

For me personally, based on that conclusion, the notion of NDEs are produced as a manifestation of a dying brain is the answer. This is based on actual fact. It doesnt mean its the correct answer, it doesnt mean you dont have a soul and go to an afterlife or another dimension or any of those things. But considering theres no actual tangible evidence or proof of those other elements other than you believe them to exist, they cant be reasoned in a scientific argument. 

You are absolutely correct. There is no tangible scientific evidence that there is anything like an afterlife or a soul, so a scientific argument cannot be made. The key word here is “tangible.” Science is built off of materialist philosophy for good reason. Thinkers want definite answers that are true beyond doubt. That is the goal of science. This level of certainty can only be obtained with empirical and reproducible data. This is its strength and also it’s weakness. Fortunately and a little unfortunately the success of science has bred a sort of fundamentalism. 

Its the attitude that if there is no material data, then something is not true. The problem of course is that there are lots of other kinds of data and reasoning that can actually give a tangibility picture of the validity of something. Let’s look at a couple of examples.

Cingularities. When Einstein discovered Cingularities inside of his equations, he originally wrote it off as impossible because it violated his senses and beliefs about the way matter should behave. Logic revealed a peice of reality long before any kind of data could be gleamed. It was a piece of logic not real scientific knowledge. Does that change the fact that black holes dot the cosmos and are essential in the formation of galaxies? Of course not. So now we have two truths. Logical truth and empirical truth. The empirical fundamentalist are right in that what ever they do know is the truth, but the weekness in empiricism is that there is a lot of truth that is also true but can only be gleamed through logic. In fact empirical truth, as in the case of black holes, must start off as logical knowledge before we can even start to try and figure out how to prove it’s there empirically.

Imagine if eons from now man evolved in a time during the evolution of the universe when andromeda and the Milky Way has merged, and all the other galaxies have followed the expansion of the universe passed the expansion event horizon.  Man would have absolutely no clue that other galaxies exist, yet there are billions. The empirical truth would be that there is only one galaxy. The logical truth would be we can only see one galaxy, but there is little reason to believe that there may not be others. Further more, some genius may have discovered that space  is expanding without observing galaxies, and the empirical truth would be that space is expanding from our own planet! Now empiricism is leading down all kinds of false roads. We know they are false because we sit in a time of the universe where we have more data, but make no mistake, if we evolved during that epok we would conclude that we are the center of the universe, and all the data would agree. 

So where am I leading with this? The circumstances surrounding NDEs as I have mentioned in other responses are indeed tangible logical evidences. There is a whole lot more than we are not discussing yet. Mostly because it has been hashed and rehashed on these forums for years, but a huge list of circumstances has emerged that point very strongly against the dying brain hypothesis. The dying brain hypothesis is Einstein disbelieving his own logic, and man discovering he is the center of the universe in an epoch when he can see no galaxies. 

Now to hail it is a scientific truth is not what I’m after. That’s the choice for fundamentalists that often don’t seem to know how scince works while holding it over others heads. It’s like a murder trial. 50 people clearly saw the murder and point to him, but there is no material evidence, so 1,000 people let the murderer go free. Plural of anecdote does not make true, but it dam sure is more likely the more plural you get. 

As to nuroscintists. They are scientists and bound by materialist philosophy. There are plenty nuroscintists that would disagree with a purely materialist interpretations. I’d imagine there are more that keep quiet due to social and professional disincentives. They may be authorities on the brain but to then give them the credibility as an authority on the whole phenomenon is just another form of assuming the conclusion fallacy and then using an apeal to authority fallacy. 

It wouldn’t matter anyway. The logic used in dying brain hypothesis pretty much centers around the brain’s ability create experiences. 

But to say —because the brain can create, then this is what it must be doing— is a logical nightmare. The simple fact that something can’t be verified dosnt automatically make it purely a creation of the brain. Especially given the widespread and historical themes that have been reported throughout history even in disconnected cultures. 

 

 

[Gecks]

7 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

You are absolutely correct. There is no tangible scientific evidence that there is anything like an afterlife or a soul, so a scientific argument cannot be made. The key word here is “tangible.” Science is built off of materialist philosophy for good reason. Thinkers want definite answers that are true beyond doubt. That is the goal of science. This level of certainty can only be obtained with empirical and reproducible data. This is its strength and also it’s weakness. Fortunately and a little unfortunately the success of science has bred a sort of fundamentalism. 

Its the attitude that if there is no material data, then something is not true. The problem of course is that there are lots of other kinds of data and reasoning that can actually give a tangibility picture of the validity of something. Let’s look at a couple of examples.

Cingularities. When Einstein discovered Cingularities inside of his equations, he originally wrote it off as impossible because it violated his senses and beliefs about the way matter should behave. Logic revealed a peice of reality long before any kind of data could be gleamed. It was a piece of logic not real scientific knowledge. Does that change the fact that black holes dot the cosmos and are essential in the formation of galaxies? Of course not. So now we have two truths. Logical truth and empirical truth. The empirical fundamentalist are right in that what ever they do know is the truth, but the weekness in empiricism is that there is a lot of truth that is also true but can only be gleamed through logic. In fact empirical truth, as in the case of black holes, must start off as logical knowledge before we can even start to try and figure out how to prove it’s there empirically.

Imagine if eons from now man evolved in a time during the evolution of the universe when andromeda and the Milky Way has merged, and all the other galaxies have followed the expansion of the universe passed the expansion event horizon.  Man would have absolutely no clue that other galaxies exist, yet there are billions. The empirical truth would be that there is only one galaxy. The logical truth would be we can only see one galaxy, but there is little reason to believe that there may not be others. Further more, some genius may have discovered that space  is expanding without observing galaxies, and the empirical truth would be that space is expanding from our own planet! Now empiricism is leading down all kinds of false roads. We know they are false because we sit in a time of the universe where we have more data, but make no mistake, if we evolved during that epok we would conclude that we are the center of the universe, and all the data would agree. 

So where am I leading with this? The circumstances surrounding NDEs as I have mentioned in other responses are indeed tangible logical evidences. There is a whole lot more than we are not discussing yet. Mostly because it has been hashed and rehashed on these forums for years, but a huge list of circumstances has emerged that point very strongly against the dying brain hypothesis. The dying brain hypothesis is Einstein disbelieving his own logic, and man discovering he is the center of the universe in an epoch when he can see no galaxies. 

Now to hail it is a scientific truth is not what I’m after. That’s the choice for fundamentalists that often don’t seem to know how scince works while holding it over others heads. It’s like a murder trial. 50 people clearly saw the murder and point to him, but there is no material evidence, so 1,000 people let the murderer go free. Plural of anecdote does not make true, but it dam sure is more likely the more plural you get. 

As to nuroscintists. They are scientists and bound by materialist philosophy. There are plenty nuroscintists that would disagree with a purely materialist interpretations. I’d imagine there are more that keep quiet due to social and professional disincentives. They may be authorities on the brain but to then give them the credibility as an authority on the whole phenomenon is just another form of assuming the conclusion fallacy and then using an apeal to authority fallacy. 

It wouldn’t matter anyway. The logic used in dying brain hypothesis pretty much centers around the brain’s ability create experiences. 

But to say —because the brain can create, then this is what it must be doing— is a logical nightmare. The simple fact that something can’t be verified dosnt automatically make it purely a creation of the brain. Especially given the widespread and historical themes that have been reported throughout history even in disconnected cultures. 

 

 

So if Im to find the basics in your argument....  your putting foward the notion that even though theres no proof or scientific reasoning, you believe due to peoples accounts who have experienced a near death event, this is logical reasoning of a soul moving on to its next stage?

Have I understood this correctly?

[Nzo]

On 1/5/2019 at 6:58 AM, RabidMongoose said:

I have a theory about all of that. In the year 3000 civilization has stepped outside of space-time and can recover everybody who has ever lived. They are careful not to disrupt our timeline (by removing dead bodies) so they simply suck out peoples consciousnesses shortly after death. As civilization already exists outside of time at that point then it has always existed outside of time. So from our perspective there is not a 1000 year wait to be recovered, it happens instantly.

Or maybe something means that they can only suck us out, even just for momentary contact, when dead. Then if we are to live send us back. Or maybe its not about disrupting the timeline but not wanting to alter the experience of life for us unnecessarily.

First you have to believe that there is some sort of existence after we die. When we go down that train of thought I have had several thoughts about what this is all about and none resemble your thoughts. My first thought is that, we are eternal beings that somehow have done something wrong and are placed here on earth to learn some sort of lesson or just for incarceration. That explains that saying, only the good die young... early parole! It also works so well because of all the secrecy about death and if anything happens afterward. We are blanked on the way in and for those of us that continue to do wrong we get reincarnated, which explains the partial blanking of our memory and being able to remember past lives with hypnosis. And by wrong I don't mean break the law or some religious law, but some kind of personal thing that is to be done by you as an individual. Maybe its accepting some part of you that is ugly or something that is so good, maybe its to just opening your eyes and see things as they are, maybe its just as simple(simple like the hardest thing ever) as forgiving yourself?

My other theory(thought) follows the same line of thinking. We are bored eternal creatures that are looking for some kind of entertainment, and this is it. Instead of being all powerful and awesome, you become human(or whatever) and you actually enjoy things like getting old, sick etc. etc. because that does not exist as an eternal?

Or

We see our bodies as we float above our bodies and for the 3 to 5 minutes our brains need to shut down we experience this out of body experience then everything fades to black, like falling asleep after a really long day of hard work. All we worked for, all our experiences, all our sins, all our achievements, our great empires that we built all dust in the wind.