Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
sees

NDE: A skeptic neurosurgeon experienced this!

277 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Davros of Skaro

The afterlife is real. It's just not what people expect though.

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, Davros of Skaro said:

The afterlife is real. It's just not what people expect though.

 

Which people?

Humans have a huge range of opinions about what an afterlife could be like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
16 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I consider physics. And the incompleteness of physics.

Observation (of the paranormal) can precede its understanding by science. That's rational scientific thinking right there.

No you don't.

The incomplete had nothing to do with that which is verified.

That's not rational thinking at all. Your starting with a conclusion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LightAngel
On 11/9/2020 at 2:27 PM, sees said:
This is a good example to bring up when encountering anyone sceptical of NDE's!

 

 

And what is your own good example?!

 

I personally don't need religion or science to tell me the truth here because I already found my own truth/proof years ago. ;)

That's why I have no need to fight about this.

If you find your own proof, then true science will follow ( even if it takes years )

 

Edited by LightAngel
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
On 11/11/2020 at 4:30 PM, psyche101 said:

 

Physics refutes the afterlife. Simple as that. It doesn't matter what your hopes and dreams are, they won't change that solid fact. 

False information plus false belief.  Physics does not refute the afterlife.  There may be an afterlife, or there may not be, but that topic is not addressed by physics in anyway whatsoever.  You BELIEVE that physics refutes the afterlife, but beliefs are not necessarily true, and many times they’re just plain wrong.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
On 11/9/2020 at 5:27 AM, sees said:
This is a good example to bring up when encountering anyone sceptical of NDE's!


I was just listening to The Unexplained by Howard Hughes (a regular Sunday evening broadcast on Talk Radio at 10 p.m in UK) when I heard about a fascinating case of NDE because it not only involved a skeptic but a neurosurgeon who dismissed such experiences as fantasies.


Then HE himself had an NDE (during a coma brought on by having meningitis).    Read about his experience here.


https://ndestories.org/dr-eben-alexander/

After having read his book twice now, I have more appreciation for Dr.  Alexander’s testimony.  At first I thought it was too strange to be true, but now that I think more about it, many aspects of his story are beginning to make a lot of sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
7 hours ago, Guyver said:

False information plus false belief.  Physics does not refute the afterlife.  There may be an afterlife, or there may not be, but that topic is not addressed by physics in anyway whatsoever.  You BELIEVE that physics refutes the afterlife, but beliefs are not necessarily true, and many times they’re just plain wrong.

That's just a rant 

That you cannot address the physics 

The topic is all about physics. Being angry at that doesn't change anything. 

No I don't believe. I know. That seems to really annoy people for some reason. I can read, it's a simple as that. The physics that refutes the afterlife is as basic and solid as 2+2=4. Being ignorant of that fact doesn't change it.

Try reading science instead of fictional novels and see how your understanding is after that. Sean Carroll has books too, much better than Eben Alexander's imaginative trash.

This is what I'm talking about. And why you should consider a blog. You can't discuss a subject, you can only get angry at ones that prove you wrong. Of it's outside your field of knowledge you tell at it rather than learn about it.

Sad that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
7 hours ago, Guyver said:

After having read his book twice now, I have more appreciation for Dr.  Alexander’s testimony.  At first I thought it was too strange to be true, but now that I think more about it, many aspects of his story are beginning to make a lot of sense to me.

A lot of people thought the same of Alex Malarkey's tale of heaven too.

Then he confessed he made it up. I wonder f Even will have the guts to admit to it like that kid did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

That's just a rant 

That you cannot address the physics 

The topic is all about physics. Being angry at that doesn't change anything. 

No I don't believe. I know. That seems to really annoy people for some reason. I can read, it's a simple as that. The physics that refutes the afterlife is as basic and solid as 2+2=4. Being ignorant of that fact doesn't change it.

Try reading science instead of fictional novels and see how your understanding is after that. Sean Carroll has books too, much better than Eben Alexander's imaginative trash.

This is what I'm talking about. And why you should consider a blog. You can't discuss a subject, you can only get angry at ones that prove you wrong. Of it's outside your field of knowledge you tell at it rather than learn about it.

Sad that.

Your investment in this issue clouds your judgement 

You are totally wrong  Science cant disprove the existence of an after life.  Physics just does not, and cannot, refute the existence of something it hasn't even defined as yet 

it is totally under equipped to do so. Maybe in the future, but not now. 

Atm we haven't really even defined the nature of any potential "life after death"

It is fair to say you  do not believe in an after life but its wrong to claim tha t science proves your belief to be true  If people get angry at you, it  may be this total blindness to reason which causes it.

I dont believe in a supernatural life after death, either I don't totally disbelieve it is possible, but i dont believe it, based on current scientific knowledge  

When you argue  that you  can know from science tha t no form of after life exists, you lose all credibility because i t is so clearly untrue  

Ps i agree with the physics presented by Sean Carrol as representing present understanding of particle physics   but i disagree with the conclusions he draws from  it and the absolutism of those conclusions 

eg he claims

Dr Carroll states “the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood” and everything happens within the realms of possibility.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/848991/life-after-death-what-happens-when-you-die-quantum-physics

 The first part  is just untrue and the second part is irrelevant  .If an afterlife exists, then it is possible.   One can  not   simply argue that it is impossible, and thus can not exist .(which is why, i suspect,  Carroll needs/tries to prove it cannot exist)  

In 100 years it will be seen that right now we have a very limited " knowledge and understanding of  the laws of physics underlying everyday;life "

its like a similar claim made 100 years ago, and doesn't allow for the evolution of both knowledge and understanding in the discipline of physics 

There are many critics, including other physicists, who say he is wrong and his claims are based on hubris or publicity seeking.

  https://quantummoxie.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/why-sean-carroll-is-wrong/

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8424

 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
On 11/14/2020 at 4:04 AM, papageorge1 said:

I consider physics. And the incompleteness of physics.

Observation (of the paranormal) can precede its understanding by science. That's rational scientific thinking right there.

Which fails the scientific method.

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Your investment in this issue clouds your judgement 

You are totally wrong  Science cant disprove the existence of an after life.  Physics just does not, and cannot, refute the existence of something it hasn't even defined as yet 

it is totally under equipped to do so. Maybe in the future, but not now. 

Atm we haven't really even defined the nature of any potential "life after death"

It is fair to say you  do not believe in an after life but its wrong to claim tha t science proves your belief to be true  If people get angry at you, it  may be this total blindness to reason which causes it.

I dont believe in a supernatural life after death, either I don't totally disbelieve it is possible, but i dont believe it, based on current scientific knowledge  

When you argue  that you  can know from science tha t no form of after life exists, you lose all credibility because i t is so clearly untrue  

Ps i agree with the physics presented by Sean Carrol as representing present understanding of particle physics   but i disagree with the conclusions he draws from  it and the absolutism of those conclusions 

eg he claims

Dr Carroll states “the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood” and everything happens within the realms of possibility.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/848991/life-after-death-what-happens-when-you-die-quantum-physics

 The first part  is just untrue and the second part is irrelevant  .If an afterlife exists, then it is possible.   One can  not   simply argue that it is impossible, and thus can not exist .(which is why, i suspect,  Carroll needs/tries to prove it cannot exist)  

In 100 years it will be seen that right now we have a very limited " knowledge and understanding of  the laws of physics underlying everyday;life "

its like a similar claim made 100 years ago, and doesn't allow for the evolution of both knowledge and understanding in the discipline of physics 

There are many critics, including other physicists, who say he is wrong and his claims are based on hubris or publicity seeking.

  https://quantummoxie.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/why-sean-carroll-is-wrong/

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8424

 

You're out of your league as are the second rate deniers you quoted. 

You clearly don't understand the physics being discussed. You seem to think they are malleable. They are not, they are like math. Your incomplete outlook is irrational and doesn't at all address the argument presented by professor Carroll. You cherry pick a small part and then misrepresent it.  I'm not sure why you discuss subjects you have no grasp of. 

You're incapable of being honest. You have proven that. You don't deserve the privilege of this reply. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear Wessel
43 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I'm not sure why you discuss subjects you have no grasp of. 

Dunning-Kruger.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LightAngel

This is for the people who want to educate themselves about this topic.

 

"Near-Death-Experience: a concept based on scientific studies by Dr. Pim van Lommel"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
4 hours ago, LightAngel said:

This is for the people who want to educate themselves about this topic.

 

"Near-Death-Experience: a concept based on scientific studies by Dr. Pim van Lommel"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Holy crap, that's the guy who made the ant man suit isn't it?

 

I'd suggest University for education, opinions for well.... opinions.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
15 hours ago, psyche101 said:

A lot of people thought the same of Alex Malarkey's tale of heaven too.

Then he confessed he made it up. I wonder f Even will have the guts to admit to it like that kid did. 

This thread isn’t about Alex Malarkey, it’s about Dr. Eben Alexander, Harvard trained neurosurgeon and former skeptic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
15 hours ago, psyche101 said:

That's just a rant 

That you cannot address the physics 

The topic is all about physics. Being angry at that doesn't change anything. 

No I don't believe. I know. That seems to really annoy people for some reason. I can read, it's a simple as that. The physics that refutes the afterlife is as basic and solid as 2+2=4. Being ignorant of that fact doesn't change it.

Sad that.

It’s a statement of fact, not a rant.  There are no physics to discuss.  Like mathematics, many aspects of physics are solid, as you claim, and that has to do with known interactions of matter and energy.  But whatever aspects that exist regarding the afterlife are not known by science nor are they described by physics or mathematics because......wait for it...breathe it in... they are UNKNOWN.  Therefore, mathematically they are undefined which makes them impossible to know.

Now do you understand why it’s false to claim that physics refutes the afterlife?  It is true to say that human physics neither confirms or refutes the existence of the afterlife and that’s what you should say so that you don’t intentionally misinform readers here.
 

Unknown doesn’t mean non-existent.  Does your logic and understanding allow for that distinction?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
7 hours ago, Guyver said:

This thread isn’t about Alex Malarkey, it’s about Dr. Eben Alexander, Harvard trained neurosurgeon and former skeptic.

Former skeptic my butt.

Just as long as nobody points out the big holes in his claim yeah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
7 hours ago, Guyver said:

It’s a statement of fact, not a rant.

No it's a rant or you would directly address the physics instead of pretending they don't exist.

7 hours ago, Guyver said:

 There are no physics to discuss.

Yes there is. Thermodynamics. Atomic structure. Entropy all specifically refute the notion of an afterlife. 

Then there's the medical sciences. The science that explains the dying and decay process. 

7 hours ago, Guyver said:

 Like mathematics, many aspects of physics are solid, as you claim, and that has to do with known interactions of matter and energy.  But whatever aspects that exist regarding the afterlife are not known by science nor are they described by physics or mathematics because......wait for it...breathe it in... they are UNKNOWN.  Therefore, mathematically they are undefined which makes them impossible to know.

Come on guyver. That's just childish and silly.

What your saying here is you believe some magic makes something happen that you want to believe in.

You would not accept such a flimsy unevidenced wild guess so it's a bit rude of you to expect that of me wouldn't you say?

What you gave don't here is start with a conclusion that's is "the afterlife is real" and are working from there. That's not scientific method. That's abuse if scientific method. 

7 hours ago, Guyver said:

Now do you understand why it’s false to claim that physics refutes the afterlife?

It's not false, you are lying to protect a vested interest.

If it was false, you would be able to pint out exactly where instead of working your way through emotions. 

7 hours ago, Guyver said:

 It is true to say that human physics neither confirms or refutes the existence of the afterlife and that’s what you should say so that you don’t intentionally misinform readers here.
 

You are deliberately dragging others down to your level because science offends you. 

I'm not saying so. I'm printing you at the tip physicist from CALTECH. He is saying it.

You are clearly out of your depth here. Why do you think your understanding is broad enough to dismiss the conclusions of the best trained minds on earth? 

7 hours ago, Guyver said:

Unknown doesn’t mean non-existent.  Does your logic and understanding allow for that distinction?

Yes it does. Unknown doesn't mean what we do know is wrong. And what we do know refutes that afterlife. 

I think you should man up and outright say you reject the science and choose belief 

That is all that you have illustrated here. You're rant does not address the facts presented by Sean Carroll which refute the afterlife. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Yes it does. Unknown doesn't mean what we do know is wrong. And what we do know refutes that afterlife. 

I think you should man up and outright say you reject the science and choose belief 

That is all that you have illustrated here. You're rant does not address the facts presented by Sean Carroll which refute the afterlife. 

There’s your tell.  I’m not sure if you’re familiar with that expression.  It has to do with playing poker.  People who are playing for money watch each other closely to see if someone has an involuntary response when they are bluffing.  Anyway, you’re not bluffing, but your logic did just break down.  That’s your tell.  You can’t accept the concept of unknowns.

So, now instead of huffing and puffing and saying all that fluff you said....I can just focus on this one critical point.  Your logic does not allow for unknowns, mine does.  Readers may judge for themselves which logic is superior.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
2 hours ago, Guyver said:

There’s your tell.  I’m not sure if you’re familiar with that expression.  It has to do with playing poker.  People who are playing for money watch each other closely to see if someone has an involuntary response when they are bluffing.  Anyway, you’re not bluffing, but your logic did just break down.  That’s your tell.  You can’t accept the concept of unknowns.

So, now instead of huffing and puffing and saying all that fluff you said....I can just focus on this one critical point.  Your logic does not allow for unknowns, mine does.  Readers may judge for themselves which logic is superior.

My logic has not broken down. 

You're referring to an imaginary quantity. Something that has never been shown to exist, but features prominently in human literature.

Your convinced that the imaginary "non material" is a real thing. 

Not because observation indicates it. Not because the standard model predicts it. Because you like the idea.

That's where you depart from science and your argument becomes unreasonable 

If you were arguing genuinely, you would quantify the non material, but you can't because it doesn't actually exist. It's also why you appeal to posters as opposed to discussing the science. Emotional feelings don't result in scientific discoveries. Poor effort on your part there.

It's merely a human concept that facilitates other imaginative ideas. 

All your huffing and puffing has shown you reject science and scientific method. 

You don't have logic. That's where your Poker face fails. 

You have rejected science and embraced faith. And if that's your choice, that's fine, I'm not saying you have to choose one or the other, I'm just saying that if you do respect science, yes it refutes the afterlife. To insist it does not is just a hysterical blind rejection. 

And quite clearly, science scares the hell out of you. Which is why your arguments are personal, and not addressing the science. You went so far to say the science does not exist. That is simply not true. You're banking on imaginary future science proving today's understood basics wrong. 

You should stop pretending you understand something that you clearly don't. Go listen to the new ACDC album. It's very good and something that's nice and simple for you to deal with. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Dogmatism goes both ways. It's as if you must either only be for or against something. A middle ground can not for some reason exist. Rather black and white view of things.

3 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You should stop pretending you understand something that you clearly don't. Go listen to the new ACDC album. It's very good and something that's nice and simple for you to deal with. 

I wonder if this anti-anything not science view you have is really based on the fear of uncertainty. Where saying "I don't know" is just shameful to you. I'm no scientist or psychologist, are you? 

Maybe I'm just wallowing in ignorance now, but I'm uncertain about everything. What I know might be wrong. As some have told me in an almost preaching way "Science changes, religion doesn't", yet it seems that this skepticism misses its mark sometimes. I figure it would be best to simply Go With What Is Know, for now. Rather than going with absolutes.

Do I know for 100% certain that NDE's are not more metaphysical? No. I only know what I currently know and even that is up for debate. Sorry, I'm not playing for either "Team".

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
36 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Dogmatism goes both ways. It's as if you must either only be for or against something. A middle ground can not for some reason exist. Rather black and white view of things.

If one knows something, should one reject that because it makes other people uncomfortable? 

I just don't think that's right.

Black and white views can be valid. Not everything is grey. They can coexist. 

Quote

I wonder if this anti-anything not science view you have is really based on the fear of uncertainty. Where saying "I don't know" is just shameful to you. I'm no scientist or psychologist, are you? 

No I'm not. Immediately related to a scientist (little sister) but an engineer myself. 

Yes, there is lots I don't know about. I learn bucket loads here from some really smart people. It's what kept me coming back here. Eight bits has actually taught me a lot in this section. He's one sharp cookie. Much smarter than I am. Got a lot of respect for that bloke. 

I don't know if you have read my posting this, but the way I see it, science isn't a book of answers. It's a book we write answers in. Yes, there are many pages to fill. Yes we have much to learn. Yes some of it will be tweaked. It doesn't mean what we do have down is wrong. What we do have is like a puzzle going together. All the pieces actually fit perfectly. That's why it's got to be right. Just like 2+2 has to equal 4. Man's cultural ideas don't fit in at all those pieces, and there is a lot of them. 

Quote

Maybe I'm just wallowing in ignorance now, but I'm uncertain about everything. What I know might be wrong. As some have told me in an almost preaching way "Science changes, religion doesn't", yet it seems that this skepticism misses its mark sometimes. I figure it would be best to simply Go With What Is Know, for now. Rather than going with absolutes.

That's fine if you want to roll that way. I don't have a problem with that. Saying I don't know isn't saying, no it isn't. That's all I ever have a problem with. That's a big difference. I know you get mad at me saying I know there's no life after death, but the physics is just too solid to dismiss. I just can't see good reason to dismiss them. I don't have much of a life. I probably read too much sometimes. 

Quote

Do I know for 100% certain that NDE's are not more metaphysical? No. I only know what I currently know and even that is up for debate. Sorry, I'm not playing for either "Team".

There's no team. I'm not here for praise or recruits. I want people to properly challenge what I know. Sometimes being straight up is the best way to do that. There's things we do know, there's things we don't. I understand what physics I do know to understand that they are as solid as basic math. And I know cultural philosophies are the work of man. From my point of view, spirituality is akin to creationism. It's man's ideas of how things work. Evolution showed just how self centered our ideas are. I don't see that problem with nature. I can trust it. That's all science is. Someone writing down what they have seen in nature, and how things come to be and work together. No gods, no egos no guessing. If we don't know, we just don't know. If we do, we do. I honestly don't see a problem with those basics being black and white. 

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

It should be "What science currently knows shows no evidence of an afterlife". 

For the converse it should be "We don't care, we just want to believe".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

I'm now looking more and more into the effects of belief. If someone believes an afterlife exist, they act in accordance to some positive/constructive morality that is supposed to allow them entrance. If doing such makes them a good person. Does it really matter if an afterlife actually exist? To be honest, no. The effect of their belief results in them not being an jerk. Of course such things can always be taken to a dogmatic conclusion. With zealous preachers of belief or damnation. 

I've already stated that I see death as "sleep", with one final dream before nothingness. I don't rigidly adhere to such an idea. Because I could very well be wrong and won't live to tell the tale. 

I'm not the same person I was for years on here. 

Edited by XenoFish
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
4 minutes ago, Davros of Skaro said:

It should be "What science currently knows shows no evidence of an afterlife". 

It shows more though.

It shows the immediate collapse of brain function as oxygen is deprived. We can watch the brain shutting down. It tells us how the body decays. It can even state what atoms one will break down into, and where all the energy in the body goes after death. 

The question is how could the afterlife possibly exist? What's left to live on? Everything breaks down eventually. There's a logical known process for complete decay. There's just no good reason that we shouldn't as well. 

4 minutes ago, Davros of Skaro said:

For the converse it should be "We don't care, we just want to believe".

Agreed. It just becomes a problem when it's claimed faith refutes science. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.