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 -

Near-death experiences: four possible theories


UM-Bot
 Share

Recommended Posts

The first theory is closest to the view that I have come to in that at death-like trauma the astral/mental body (normally interpenetrating the physical body) separates from the physical body and experience continues much as before without the clunky outercoat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always been a big believer that energy is eternal, so I hope this is true when I transition from life to death.

Hey, one can hope, right?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Always been a big believer that energy is eternal, so I hope this is true when I transition from life to death.

Hey, one can hope, right?

Energy is one of those words which people with woolly spiritual ideas should be banned from using. 

Edited by determinism
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Always been a big believer that energy is eternal, so I hope this is true when I transition from life to death.

Hey, one can hope, right?

I never understood that argument. Doesn't human energy come from the breakdown of food? Once that process stops.......?

I think there is also a life-force energy prana.

Edited by papageorge1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, pallidin said:

Always been a big believer that energy is eternal, so I hope this is true when I transition from life to death.

Hey, one can hope, right?

I believe our energy on death can't disappear but does spread through the universe, this is not your spirit. Your spirit inhabits the energy filled body which we call life.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, determinism said:

Energy is one of those words which people with woolly spiritual ideas should be banned from using. 

Why? I think everyone is entitled to air their belief either way without others policing it.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only 'near-death experience' happened when I was the first time at the Pink Floyd live show. It was the Wall tour 1981, and I was so excited that I thought my heart would not endure the whole show. :lol:

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jethrofloyd said:

My only 'near-death experience' happened when I was the first time at the Pink Floyd live show. It was the Wall tour 1981, and I was so excited that I thought my heart would not endure the whole show. :lol:

Great place to die mate with Learning to Fly playing and when gone, Comfortably Numb :tu:

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, openozy said:

Your spirit inhabits the energy filled body which we call life.

In your view what becomes of the spirit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one is close...

Quote

The second, more grounded, possibility is that the mind is simply a by-product of the complex neuronal activities of the physical brain and does not exist independently of the body.

And to add, when the brain dies what made us us dies with it.

The brain likely doesnt want to die and goes into a panic mode while its dying those who go ahead and pass on thats that the ones who dont die come back to tell wonderful stories.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another author making up stuff and saying it can't be determined by using the "you can't disprove a negative" schtick.

Just what the field needs. Another kook without accountability. 

Why do people keep buying book from people selling that same crap in different packaging? 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 4/5/2022 at 6:01 PM, openozy said:

Why? I think everyone is entitled to air their belief either way without others policing it.

Everyone is indeed entitled to air their beliefs just as I'm entitled to point out incorrect usage or BS when I see it which you may see as "policing." The term "energy" has a very specific denotation and can only be properly used according to scientifc terminology. Any other usage of the word "energy" is metamorphic or just total BS. Types of energy that exist are potential, kinetic, thermal, and chemical energy as well as matter.

So please specify which type of energy you are referring to in your comments from the types I provided and if you can't, then don't use the term energy. 

Let's look at post #5 for example. The poster references "life-force energy prana." So is prana a property of an object or a system? Can the property be transferred into another system? Does it have the capacity to do work? Is it used in any equations? As you can see, the term "life-force energy" is totally meaningless in comparison to kinetic energy for example. 

 

Edited by csspwns
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, csspwns said:

Types of energy that exist are potential, kinetic, thermal, and chemical energy as well as matter.

That's in your tiny world mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is a NDE?

What it is a dream?  ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, openozy said:

That's in your tiny world mate.

Well why do you have to use the term energy? If you replace life-force energy with BS energy there is no difference. Both are meaningless. You guys love making things up and having no adequate evidence to back up your claims, so why don't you guys make up another more appropriate word to use instead of energy? In my tiny world, we know our definition of energy is correct because we use it everyday to compute things. Something that you don't appreciate and take for granted. 

If you ever do find a way to sufficiently demonstrate evidence of your *sigh* "alternative energies" though, please contact me and we (technical/medical/evidence-based people) will change how we see energy and the world along with it! Dead serious. 

Until then, we will continue using the principles of potential, kinetic, thermal, and chemical energy in order to make computations that go into building/maintaining your electronics, infrastructure, virtual networks, health, etc. Currently, there is no way or need to account for BS energies in our practical fields. Perhaps you guys can soon change that by healing the spiritual energy of our workers or something!

Edited by csspwns
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, csspwns said:

Well why do you have to use the term energy? If you replace life-force energy with BS energy there is no difference. Both are meaningless. You guys love making things up and having no adequate evidence to back up your claims, so why don't you guys make up another more appropriate word to use instead of energy?

A lot of things that were considered BS years ago have been proven now. That's because some scientists actually had an imagination instead of just reading others outdated info. It's called intelligence.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, csspwns said:

Perhaps you guys

If you're talking about people that actually think for themselves I'm happy to be included.

Edited by openozy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, openozy said:

A lot of things that were considered BS years ago have been proven now. That's because some scientists actually had an imagination instead of just reading others outdated info. It's called intelligence.

What is the overlapping factor here? EVIDENCE! What is something that we have now that scientists of the past didnt? Sound fundamentals of the physics that govern our world. A graduate student in physics today is more "knowledgable" than Isaac Newton ever was.

So, where is your evidence that scientists of the past provided to argue their claims against other scientists? Non-existent or invalid. 

10 minutes ago, openozy said:

If you're talking about people that actually think for themselves I'm happy to be included.

There's a difference between critical thinking and your type of thinking. Honestly I don't have much issue with it until it becomes detrimental to yourself or to public health and safety, or you say things that require correcting. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, csspwns said:

. A graduate student in physics today is more "knowledgable" than Isaac Newton ever was.

Hi Cs

Yes of course we have data to work with and it expands when I was in primary school math changed3 times by the time I hit grade 9, neither my older brother or my younger sister were taught the same math and my mom that taught special ed had no idea whet we were working with. Paradoxes happen

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, csspwns said:

So, where is your evidence that scientists of the past provided to argue their claims against other scientists? Non-existent or invalid.

So where is your evidence they didn't? Yeah, non existent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, csspwns said:

There's a difference between critical thinking and your type of thinking.

You wouldn't have a clue how I think, mainly because you are limited by the square you live in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, csspwns said:

So, where is your evidence that scientists of the past provided to argue their claims against other scientists? Non-existent or invalid.

Probably because they progressed instead of having stagnant thinking as a lot of people seem to have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2022 at 7:18 PM, openozy said:

Probably because they progressed instead of having stagnant thinking as a lot of people seem to have.

On 4/14/2022 at 7:11 PM, openozy said:

So where is your evidence they didn't? Yeah, non existent.

I think you misunderstood that sentence. What I was saying was where is your irrefutable evidence of your claims, just like the evidence scientists of the past used to convince other scientists of their claims. There's a huge difference between your quality of evidence and actual accepted evidence by professionals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2022 at 6:16 PM, jmccr8 said:

Hi Cs

Yes of course we have data to work with and it expands when I was in primary school math changed3 times by the time I hit grade 9, neither my older brother or my younger sister were taught the same math and my mom that taught special ed had no idea whet we were working with. Paradoxes happen

Not quite sure what this has to do with what we're talking about. What do you mean by "Paradoxes happen?"

Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.