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

4 minutes ago, csspwns said:

There's a huge difference between your quality of evidence and actual accepted evidence by professionals.

Professional what? I've never needed evidence to prove to anyone else what I've experienced and believe and never will. Probably because I'm not interested in the opinions of people with limited thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, openozy said:

Professional what? I've never needed evidence to prove to anyone else what I've experienced and believe and never will. Probably because I'm not interested in the opinions of people with limited thinking.

Professionals as in scientists, medical practicioners, engineers, etc who use the term energy in their everyday work. You claim that there are more types of energies than the ones I've previously specified. It's now up to you to prove that claim, otherwise don't use the term energy to describe your beliefs. 

Also not to call you out or anything, but it's not that you "never needed evidence," it's that you don't have any. If you do have any extraordinary experiences though I urge you to compile evidence and possible ways for replication and analysis that is presentable. You could quite literally change the way we view the world and everything we "people with limited thinking" know about it. Unfortunately for you, our opinions are still used as the standard for how things are run and our "limited thinking" is responsible for all the things you take for granted. I challenge you to change that. 

Edited by csspwns
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, csspwns said:

otherwise don't use the term energy to describe your beliefs.

I will describe it as I like, you aren't calling the shots with me.

3 hours ago, csspwns said:

If you do have any extraordinary experiences though I urge you to compile evidence and possible ways for replication and analysis that is presentable.

I shall do that for you :lol:. Stick to your science books that other people wrote because you obviously don't think for yourself outside the box you exist in and seem to feel the need to try and order people around to your bland thinking. Doesn't work with me mate.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
6 hours ago, csspwns said:

Professionals as in scientists, medical practicioners, engineers, etc who use the term energy in their everyday work. You claim that there are more types of energies than the ones I've previously specified. It's now up to you to prove that claim, otherwise don't use the term energy to describe your beliefs. 

Also not to call you out or anything, but it's not that you "never needed evidence," it's that you don't have any. If you do have any extraordinary experiences though I urge you to compile evidence and possible ways for replication and analysis that is presentable. You could quite literally change the way we view the world and everything we "people with limited thinking" know about it. Unfortunately for you, our opinions are still used as the standard for how things are run and our "limited thinking" is responsible for all the things you take for granted. I challenge you to change that. 

Please do not forbid others to use the term energy. It's a commonly used word in many beliefs, and has been for quite a while now. No proof required, it really is a commonly used word and has been for a long time. Energy didn't start out as a science word, though some of the sciences started using it a couple hundred years ago and it caught on. You may not appreciate the word energy being used in such a fashion, but do not forbid others from using it as part of their belief systems.

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

If you're going to say a soul exist. Then it must be some type of immortal particle that also contains the essence of a person. 

Get back to me when/if this "Casper" particle is found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, rashore said:

Please do not forbid others to use the term energy. It's a commonly used word in many beliefs, and has been for quite a while now. No proof required, it really is a commonly used word and has been for a long time. Energy didn't start out as a science word, though some of the sciences started using it a couple hundred years ago and it caught on. You may not appreciate the word energy being used in such a fashion, but do not forbid others from using it as part of their belief systems.

My main point is to not use the term energy in a seemingly scientific context when refering to connotative or metaphorical interpretations of energy. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough. Conflating the scientific term energy and the metaphorical term energy is a recipe for disaster as one is based off tangible evidence and the other is based more off perception and metaphysics. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, openozy said:

I will describe it as I like, you aren't calling the shots with me.

I shall do that for you :lol:. Stick to your science books that other people wrote because you obviously don't think for yourself outside the box you exist in and seem to feel the need to try and order people around to your bland thinking. Doesn't work with me mate.

Sure go ahead and use energy as you like connotatively and metaphorically. Just know that no one will take you seriously without evidence to back up your claims if you attempt to describe your metaphoric energies in a scientific context, but you clearly don't work in a technical field where accuracy and precision is important so I guess it doesn't concern you. Also if you don't have the knowledge for counter-arguments and have nothing useful or substantial to add to the conversation just say so. All you're doing right now is avoiding very valid points which you have no response against besides being arrogant and mocking. This isn't me feeling the need to order people around. This is me pointing out fundamental facts and you saying those facts only exist in my tiny world and refusing to elaborate, and instead resulting to mockery to distract from your lack of evidence and valid counter-arguments. 

Please give me a reason to think in the same box you're thinking in. We live in an evidence-based world. If we had people who thought like you in charge, we may still be relying on horses as our primary mode of transport. Has your thinking led to any substantial discoveries or innovations? Are you an expert in some field that I'm not aware of and have made many positive contributions to our livelihoods with your out of the box thinking? My bland thinking has led to the completion of projects worth hundreds of millions and improved the lives of hundreds of thousands to millions of people. If you can show me a way to harness my psychic powers or something along those lines, I along with others would be exponentially more efficient with my work. If you can discover a mechanism for utlizing the extraordinary please let us know. Right now we rely on software scheduling, meetings, and programming for communication. If we had psychic ways to communicate it would solve many of the factors causing delays in projects. You may be able to change the world as we know it, please make the extra effort to support your claims. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
1 minute ago, csspwns said:

My main point is to not use the term energy in a seemingly scientific context when refering to connotative or metaphorical interpretations of energy. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough. Conflating the scientific term energy and the metaphorical term energy is a recipe for disaster as one is based off tangible evidence and the other is based more off perception and metaphysics. 

It's a thread about near death experience and the soul. And folks were talking about the metaphysical till someone decided to take it to the scientific and start forbidding common language use. If you aren't keen on energy being used in the metaphysical sense, perhaps don't participate in the spooky threads and stick to the more scientific ones where energy does tend to only denote the scientific forms. But please don't forbid an opposing viewpoint- it is a common and valid viewpoint for many people to use the term energy in the metaphysical sense in topics about those things. Please don't bash other members, or criticize their grammar, or forbid balanced discussion because you view a word in a particular fashion and others do not. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, rashore said:

It's a thread about near death experience and the soul. And folks were talking about the metaphysical till someone decided to take it to the scientific and start forbidding common language use. If you aren't keen on energy being used in the metaphysical sense, perhaps don't participate in the spooky threads and stick to the more scientific ones where energy does tend to only denote the scientific forms. But please don't forbid an opposing viewpoint- it is a common and valid viewpoint for many people to use the term energy in the metaphysical sense in topics about those things. Please don't bash other members, or criticize their grammar, or forbid balanced discussion because you view a word in a particular fashion and others do not. 

I find that some metaphysical interpretations of energy can be detrimental to health as people take their beliefs of those types of energies as fact. Of course it isn't my job or responsibility to try to change someone's views but I have had experiences of people close to me that have had their lives negatively impacted by beliefs in metaphysical interpretations of energy. This is why I very much prefer energy to be used in an evidence-based or scientific context. I understand that people may not appreciate that and that is not the focus of this thread, I'm just adding a different perspective and anyone is welcome to discuss the points I've brought up. I don't understand why you think I'm forbidding balanced discussion. I've asked a user to back up their claims as I have and I've only been met with arrogance and mockery instead.  

Edit: I see my initial post was quite loaded, apologies I'll try to refrain from that.

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

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
2 minutes ago, csspwns said:

I find that some metaphysical interpretations of energy can be detrimental to health as people take their beliefs of those types of energies as fact. Of course it isn't my job or responsibility to try to change someone's views but I have had experiences of people close to me that have had their lives negatively impacted by beliefs in metaphysical interpretations of energy. This is why I very much prefer energy to be used in an evidence-based or scientific context. I understand that people may not appreciate that and that is not the focus of this thread, I'm just adding a different perspective and anyone is welcome to discuss the points I've brought up. I don't understand why you think I'm forbidding balanced discussion. I've asked a user to back up their claims as I have and I've only been met with arrogance and mockery instead.  

Your first comment in the thread is telling someone to either use your terms, or don't use the term energy. 

Quote

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. 

Your second post you continue on, insisting you are correct, bashing on the usage of the term energy in the metaphysical sense. 

Quote

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!

And then you post straight up telling another member to not use the term energy except for on your terms. That's the commentary I originally quoted. You are not being balanced in discussion. You are requiring others to adhere to your version and not allowing for others to continue using their version as well. And not just forbidding others from using energy in their version, you are bashing on energy being used in that fashion. And that is for sure not balanced discussion. 

Of course it get's peoples hackles up when they are being told a word they use in their beliefs is BS, incorrect, meaningless, and to not use it, or only use it in a different context. Got your hackles up too when folks seem to want to keep using the word the same as they have and gave you flack back about it. Let's all just knock it off here. 

This discussion can indeed be had using the term energy in the more metaphysical and the more tangible scientific ways. Not excluding either version, not forbidding the usage of the word by anyone just because it does not fit their set of beliefs. Let's turn back to the OP and the discussion of near death experiences here. There have been four theories presented.

Do you have any particular preference for one of those four theories?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, rashore said:

Your first comment in the thread is telling someone to either use your terms, or don't use the term energy. 

Your second post you continue on, insisting you are correct, bashing on the usage of the term energy in the metaphysical sense. 

And then you post straight up telling another member to not use the term energy except for on your terms. That's the commentary I originally quoted. You are not being balanced in discussion. You are requiring others to adhere to your version and not allowing for others to continue using their version as well. And not just forbidding others from using energy in their version, you are bashing on energy being used in that fashion. And that is for sure not balanced discussion. 

Of course it get's peoples hackles up when they are being told a word they use in their beliefs is BS, incorrect, meaningless, and to not use it, or only use it in a different context. Got your hackles up too when folks seem to want to keep using the word the same as they have and gave you flack back about it. Let's all just knock it off here. 

This discussion can indeed be had using the term energy in the more metaphysical and the more tangible scientific ways. Not excluding either version, not forbidding the usage of the word by anyone just because it does not fit their set of beliefs. Let's turn back to the OP and the discussion of near death experiences here. There have been four theories presented.

Do you have any particular preference for one of those four theories?

Well yes I've already admitted to being loaded previously in my edit above and apologized for that. Later on I've asked them to back up their claims as I have and yet they've only continued bashing me, perhaps as a way to avoid answering my questions? I'd rather have someone bash me while providing evidence than bash me just for the sake of bashing me. Does the user saying that tangible forms of energy only existing in my tiny world without providing evidence otherwise and later on continuing to bash me without backing up their claims as I have make for balanced discussion? I'm definitely responsible which I admit to but why am I the only one being called out here? 

As for which of the four theories I prefer, I lean towards the second one until tangible evidence emerges that the mind and consciousness can exist beyond the body. I believe recently scientists have been able to observe the processes of memories being formed and encoded however I have yet to read more into that. I would like to see a more indepth analysis from Verny as to why he cities multi-personality disorder, etc to be inexplicable if the mind were just a physical quantity produced by the brain therefore rejecting the second theory. I don't think I saw that covered in the article.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
22 minutes ago, csspwns said:

Well yes I've already admitted to being loaded previously in my edit above and apologized for that. Later on I've asked them to back up their claims as I have and yet they've only continued bashing me, perhaps as a way to avoid answering my questions? I'd rather have someone bash me while providing evidence than bash me just for the sake of bashing me. Does the user saying that tangible forms of energy only existing in my tiny world without providing evidence otherwise and later on continuing to bash me without backing up their claims as I have make for balanced discussion? I'm definitely responsible which I admit to but why am I the only one being called out here? 

As for which of the four theories I prefer, I lean towards the second one until tangible evidence emerges that the mind and consciousness can exist beyond the body. I believe recently scientists have been able to observe the processes of memories being formed and encoded however I have yet to read more into that. I would like to see a more indepth analysis from Verny as to why he cities multi-personality disorder, etc to be inexplicable if the mind were just a physical quantity produced by the brain therefore rejecting the second theory. I don't think I saw that covered in the article.

You aren't the only one I call out- you just happen to be the one continuing on with the forbidding of word usage to others this time so I'm calling you out on that particular thing. And don't assume if other members here get spoken to or not just because you are being spoken to at the moment. Not going to play the what about others game.

For more in depth on Verny's perspective on personality disorders, here's his writings on it. I'll give a couple links because sometimes folks have different research access. 

The Pre- and Perinatal Origins of Childhood and Adult Diseases and Personality Disorders: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291301315_The_pre_perinatal_origins_of_childhood_adult_diseases_and_personality_disorders

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-41716-1_5

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, csspwns said:

Sure go ahead and use energy as you like connotatively and metaphorically. Just know that no one will take you seriously without evidence to back up your claims if you attempt to describe your metaphoric energies in a scientific context, but you clearly don't work in a technical field where accuracy and precision is important so I guess it doesn't concern you. Also if you don't have the knowledge for counter-arguments and have nothing useful or substantial to add to the conversation just say so. All you're doing right now is avoiding very valid points which you have no response against besides being arrogant and mocking. This isn't me feeling the need to order people around. This is me pointing out fundamental facts and you saying those facts only exist in my tiny world and refusing to elaborate, and instead resulting to mockery to distract from your lack of evidence and valid counter-arguments. 

Please give me a reason to think in the same box you're thinking in. We live in an evidence-based world. If we had people who thought like you in charge, we may still be relying on horses as our primary mode of transport. Has your thinking led to any substantial discoveries or innovations? Are you an expert in some field that I'm not aware of and have made many positive contributions to our livelihoods with your out of the box thinking? My bland thinking has led to the completion of projects worth hundreds of millions and improved the lives of hundreds of thousands to millions of people. If you can show me a way to harness my psychic powers or something along those lines, I along with others would be exponentially more efficient with my work. If you can discover a mechanism for utlizing the extraordinary please let us know. Right now we rely on software scheduling, meetings, and programming for communication. If we had psychic ways to communicate it would solve many of the factors causing delays in projects. You may be able to change the world as we know it, please make the extra effort to support your claims. 

You really need to get over your ego and became more aware, then you may get the meaning of life and death and how insignificant we all really are in the big picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, openozy said:

You really need to get over your ego and became more aware, then you may get the meaning of life and death and how insignificant we all really are in the big picture.

You're sort of both right. There's an energy that keeps the body functioning. It's not electricity per se, but electricity is a close enough analogy for basic principles.

Your body produces that energy with tiny ion pumps on your nervous system. They create the energy we use to be alive.

Upon death, those pump's stop. No more energy is produced. The energy that is left in your body is released into the surrounding atmosphere. That's the body reaching room temperature, or becoming"cold". Cold because the energy is gone. Everything is shut down. That's thermodynamics.

At that point material recycling takes over. Then what we are made up of is dissipated down to an atomic level. I would think that the body leaves more material substance to recycle than energy. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

The energy that is left in your body is released into the surrounding atmosphere.

Do you think this could be visible 101, maybe mistaken for a spirit by some people?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, openozy said:

Do you think this could be visible 101, maybe mistaken for a spirit by some people?

It would be visible in infra red but so slow it would take some serious patience. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It would be visible in infra red but so slow it would take some serious patience. 

I've seen a green colored mist rising from two dogs and one person on different occasions as they died. Being me I took it as their spirits ascending but I'll accept it if there is a scientific explanation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, openozy said:

I've seen a green colored mist rising from two dogs and one person on different occasions as they died. Being me I took it as their spirits ascending but I'll accept it if there is a scientific explanation.

Interesting, was it definitely green? Blackbody radiation is generally in lower frequencies, red and yellow, it takes a fair bit of heat to emit green light, and yellow should precede it. It's not something the human eye can see, but perhaps an atmospheric anomaly could make it visible. Lots of things would be possible I would think. 

I guess it's all what a spirit is to you. As pure energy that you have described, it makes some sense. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Interesting, was it definitely green? Blackbody radiation is generally in lower frequencies, red and yellow, it takes a fair bit of heat to emit green light, and yellow should precede it. It's not something the human eye can see, but perhaps an atmospheric anomaly could make it visible. Lots of things would be possible I would think. 

I guess it's all what a spirit is to you. As pure energy that you have described, it makes some sense. 

I do a bit of hunting and have seen a lot of animals die but have only seen this on the three occasions. Yes all were a green color, the most intense green was from a young pup that died as I lay it on the ground at night after being hit by a car. The night was very cold, Winter in Katoomba, Blue Mountains.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, openozy said:

I do a bit of hunting and have seen a lot of animals die but have only seen this on the three occasions. Yes all were a green color, the most intense green was from a young pup that died as I lay it on the ground at night after being hit by a car. The night was very cold, Winter in Katoomba, Blue Mountains.

I'm taking a huge guess here, but maybe something along these lines happened in cold dark conditions:

If we pack a lot of photons in a short pulse, like with an infrared laser, then its possible for one two photons to be absorbed at one time by a single photopigment, and the combined energy of the two light particles is enough to activate the pigment and allow the eye to see what normally is invisible.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.zmescience.com/science/physics/infrared-light-human-eye-detection-06455/amp/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I'm taking a huge guess here, but maybe something along these lines happened in cold dark conditions:

If we pack a lot of photons in a short pulse, like with an infrared laser, then its possible for one two photons to be absorbed at one time by a single photopigment, and the combined energy of the two light particles is enough to activate the pigment and allow the eye to see what normally is invisible.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.zmescience.com/science/physics/infrared-light-human-eye-detection-06455/amp/

Thanks for taking the time with that 101 :tu:. It could explain some of what onlookers see at a death, maybe.

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

Just now, openozy said:

Thanks for taking the time with that 101 :tu:. It could explain some of what onlookers see at a death, maybe.

You're most welcome bud.

Maybe. Just shooting ideas about. 

I've always said, if people are really seeing these things, there simply had to be a better explanation than very old ideas. I'm not saying people don't see strange stuff, just that most tend to jump toward comfortable conclusions. I appreciate your open approach to other ideas of what happens at death. I think there's still a lot to learn.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2022 at 8:44 AM, the13bats said:

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.

So, do you simply choose to believe that those who have reported seeing and hearing things totally removed from the presence of where their body is located, are all being deceptive?  There are numerous instances where the NDE account includes information that the patient could not be aware of.  One woman made a comment about a shoe setting on a window ledge on a floor of the hospital she had never visited before.  

THOSE are the kinds of examples that cause me to doubt any narrative concerning the brain shutting down and the entire experience is generated organically.  As for the experience itself, I do not believe that it is random and purely organic.  I believe there is a part of us that transcends the physical body upon death.

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

On 4/17/2022 at 5:51 PM, openozy said:

You really need to get over your ego and became more aware, then you may get the meaning of life and death and how insignificant we all really are in the big picture.

What is my "ego" and why do I need to "get over my ego?" What should I be more aware of? What is the meaning of life and death? How does us being insignificant in the big picture affect the way we should act? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 4/18/2022 at 8:04 PM, openozy said:

I've seen a green colored mist rising from two dogs and one person on different occasions as they died. Being me I took it as their spirits ascending but I'll accept it if there is a scientific explanation.

Can you describe the movement pattern of the mist (uniformly rising, flickering, wisping)? Did it seem to be affected by the wind? Which part of the bodies was the starting point of the mist? Did it look a combination of many individual particles? Was it a single green color (how intense or bright were they) or shades of green? What would you say the length of the mist was, what was its highest stopping point, how thick was it? Was there a smell/scent associated? How dark was it outside, was there moonlight or other light sources shining on the area you were in or shining on the bodies? Were you able to capture it on a device?

Edited by csspwns
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.